Jalaludeen v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 13/09/2022 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mrs.Justice R.THARANI CRL OP(MD). No.16453 of 2022
1. Jalaludeen
2. Abdul Jabbar ... Petitioners/Accused No.6 & 7 Vs State rep.by The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Trichy City, Tiruchirappalli-1.
(Crime No.30 of 2022).
... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : M/s.Karthik Raja D, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.30 of 2022 on the file of the Respondent Police.
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/A6 & A7, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC, in Cr.No.30 of 2022, seek anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant is the second wife of one Dharmaraj. The said Dharmaraj got divorce with the first accused. On 19.01.2021, the said Dharmaraj passed away at England. Thereafter, the de-facto complainant came to know that the property comprised in S.No.323/1C, which belongs to her husband, was sold out by the first accused with the help of this petitioner and other accused. Hence, the above case has been registered against the petitioners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.On the side of the petitioners, it is stated that the petitioners are innocent and they are no way connected with the alleged offence and they have been falsely implicated in this case and prayed the petitioners to be released on anticipatory bail. 4.On the side of the prosecution, it is stated that totally eight accused involved in the offence. The de-facto complainant is the second wife of the deceased Dharmaraj. A1 is the first wife of the said Dharmaraj. A6 is the subsequent purchaser and A7 is witnessed to the document. After the death of the said Dharmaraj, all the accused sold out the property and prayed the petition to be dismissed.
5.Considering the seriousness and gravity of the offence and also considering the fact that there existed property dispute between the parties and also considering the fact that all the accused are absconding, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Sd/- 13/09/2022 / TRUE COPY / /09/2022 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.II) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
SJI Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
TO
1. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, TRICHY CITY, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI-1.
2. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1. CC to M/S.KARTHIK RAJA D Advocate SR.No.9954
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.16453 of 2022 Date :13/09/2022 SP/SVR/SAR II/20/09/2022/2P/4C https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis