R.Ravi v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Seventh day of December Two Thousand and Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN CRL OP(MD) No.17929 of 2021 R.RAVI ... PETITIONER/2nd ACCUSED Vs THE STATE REP.BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CITY CRIME BRANCH, TIRUNELVELI CITY, TIRUNELVELI.

(CRIME NO. 21 OF 2020) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. PETHU RAJESH.P. Advocate For Respondent : M/S.S.MANIKANDAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CRIME NO. 21 OF 2020 ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT POLICE .

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner/A2, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 419, 465, 468 and 471 IPC in Crime No.21 of 2020, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that A1 created a forged power deed in favour of this petitioner/A2, in which A3 and A4 have signed as witnesses.

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 4.The manner in which the occurrence said to have taken place prima facie shows the involvement of this petitioner also in the above transaction. Even though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that one of the co-accused has handed over or presented the forged document, believing the words of A1, this

petitioner presented the Aathar Card and other relevant documents, at the time of the proposed registration of the power of attorney deed. So according to him, without knowledge the offence that has been said to have been committed by A1, this petitioner entered into the above said contract of power of attorney along with A1. So according to him, absolutely, it was a genuine attempt in so far as this petitioner.

5.I am unable to agree with the stand that has been taken by the petitioner that it is a matter of mere civil transaction. It is a matter of execution of power of attorney in favour of the petitioner by A1. So the contention of the petitioner that believing the words of A1, he agreed to enter into such a sort of transaction prime facie is not now available to the petitioner. More over, it is seen that the petitioner is also involved in previous cases numbering 4. Two cases have been initiated under section 110 and 109 Cr.P.C In so far as other two cases are concerned, the offences are 379 and 506(ii) IPC and section 3 of TNPPDL Act. So these antecedents of the petitioner, dis-entitles him to claim benefit of the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. 6.

More-over, the earlier two anticipatory bails that have been filed by this petitioner before the District and Sessions Court, Tirunelveli came to be dismissed on valid grounds. So considering the nature of the offence, the manner in which the offences said to have taken place and the antecedents of the petitioner, this court is not inclined to exercise the discretionary relief in favour of the petitioner.

7.Accordingly, this petition is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed.

sd/- 07/12/2021 / TRUE COPY / / /2021 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

er 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, CITY CRIME BRANCH, TIRUNELVELI CITY, TIRUNELVELI.

2.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1 CC to M/s.P.PETHU RAJESH, Advocate ( SR-9009[I] dated 09/12/2021

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.17929 of 2021 Date :07/12/2021 RK/PN/SAR-III(13/12/2021) 3P 4C