Mani @ Mani N.S v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep.By

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 13/11/2024 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice N.ANAND VENKATESH N.S.Mani @ Mani ... Petitioner/Accused Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep.By, The Sub-Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Virudhunagar District, (Crime No.10 of 2024). ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.R.Jagadeeshwaran For Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi, Additional Public Prosecutor For Intervener : Mr.J.Jeyakumaran PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No.10 of 2024 on the file of the Respondent Police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- 1/4

The petitioner/Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 20.10.2024, for the offence punishable under Sections 120(b), 420, 465, 468, 471, 294(b), 506(2) IPC in Crime No. 10 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the subject property situated at Ammapettai, Sattur, Virudhunagar District measuring a extent of 27.70 acres belonged to IVR Prime Developers (Raku) Pvt., Limited. The petitioner used to work for this Company as the Assistant Engineer. He produced a Company resolution passed, as if, he was authorized to deal with the property. Based on the same, the entire property was sold in favour of A2 and thereafter, it was sold to the defacto complainant by way of three documents. The defacto complainant was insisting for the parent documents and the accused persons were evading. It is under these circumstances, the complaint came to be given to the police station. 3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent and the learned counsel for the intervener. 2/4

4.This Court had the advantage of going through the CD file. The transaction had taken place by virtue of resolution passed by the Directors of the Company on 24.06.2023. This resolution is alleged to be a fabricated document and the person, who has been shown as a Director namely Seetharaman is not even a Director of the Company. The investigation is pending. 5.Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that a prima facie case has been made out to show that there was moral turpitude involved on the part of accused, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage.

6. In the result, this petition stands dismissed. sd/- 13/11/2024 / TRUE COPY / / 11 /2024 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( CS-I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

3/4

PNM TO

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Virudhunagar District.

2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

copy to:

The District Prison, Virudhunagar District.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.19557 of 2024 Date : 13/11/2024 SI -(25.11.2024) 4P/ 4C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023. 4/4