The seriousness of the allegations, the presence of incriminating evidence, and the essentiality of the petitioner's availability for trial influenced the court's decision to deny bail.

P. Devadass, J.

1. Petition for bail in Cr.No.5 of 2013.

2. Offences alleged are under Section 465, 467, 468, 465 r/w 34, 471 r/w 468 and 420 of IPC.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner has been implicated in this case. Investigation completed. Final Report also has been filed. On account of missing of defacto complainant's sister Lalitha, petitioner cannot be denied bail. She might have left her house voluntarily. One day she may emerge. For her missing, petitioner cannot be blamed.

4. According to the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), using an old lady, petitioner has impersonated one Lalitha and cheated her of her property creating documents. The said Lalitha is missing already. There are lot of incriminating evidence both oral and documentary. Petitioner is an influential person. If let out, he will flee away from justice.

5. Learned counsel for the Intervenor reiterated the submissions of the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side). He further submitted that the missing woman Lalitha was lastly seen along with the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the Intervenor also submitted that Intervenor also filed H.C.P. No.2146 of 2013 to trace her sister. A Division Bench of this court also directed the C.B. C.I.D. to conduct investigation by a D.S.P. under the supervision of Addl. Director-General of Police, C.B. C.I.D., Chennai. Petitioner is responsible for her missing. She might have been murdered. It will be known soon in the ongoing investigation by C.B. C.I.D.

7. I have anxiously considered the submissions of the learned counsels and perused the averments in the bail petition, intervening petition, written objection filed by the learned Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side), and the case diary.

8. Petitioner is A-1. He is an Advocate. He practised in the criminal courts in Egmore. While he was studying law, he was helped by one Nadanamani Balu @ Balasubramaniam, who is husband of Lalitha @ Lalitha Yogeswari. Petitioner completed his law course and became a lawyer. Nadanamani Balu passed away. Lalitha became a widow.

9. Lalitha is owner of the property bearing New No.20/21, Khan Sahib street, Kodambakkam, Chennai. It is worth about Rs.3 Crores. Petitioner helped her in many ways. He also helped her to run a ladies hostel in her property. Suddenly, on 5.9.2010, she went missing.

10. On 30.8.2013, a General Power of Attorney stated to have been executed by the said Lalitha in favour of A-1 has been registered in the Sub Registrar's Office in Kodambakkam, Chennai. It was attested to by A-3, Kalirajan and A-4 Suresh Jagadeesan. On coming to know about this Lalitha's brother Venkataraman lodged complaint.

11. C.B. C.I.D. Metro Unit, Chennai investigated the case. Collected evidence. Prosecution came out with the version that the petitioner had impersonated the missing woman Lalitha through one Papathiammal (A-2) with the assistance of A-3 and A-4 and got executed a General Power of Attorney and leased out a portion of the property and also tried to sell the property. Statement of several witnesses have been recorded and several documents were also seized.

12. In the meanwhile, Venkataraman filed H.C.P. No.2146 of 2013 in this court to produce his sister Lalitha before this court. On 17.3.2014, a Division Bench of this court directed the prosecution to trace her and also directed the Additional Director General of Police, C.B. C.I.D., Chennai to supervise the investigation and also directed to file a status report.

13. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the Intervenor that Lalitha was lastly seen along with A-1. This has also been stressed by the learned Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side).

14. In this case, investigation has been completed. Final report also has been filed before the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai. He took cognizance in C.C. No.1918 of 2014. The case is coming up for hearing on 2.4.2014.

15. Very serious allegations are made against the petitione