This petition has been filed praying to cancel the anticipatory bail granted in favour of the first respondent vide order dated 13.05.2015 made in Crl.M.P.No.1068 of 2015 by the learned Vacation Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli.

2. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner and first respondent are neighbours. The first respondent introduced one Muthukumar (A.1) as Satheshkumar and he is the owner of the land to an extent of 2 acres situated at Tamalaroobam Village in Trichy within the Corporation limit and A.1 informed him that he is going to sell the said property. Believing the same, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.2 crores to the first respondent and A.1 as advance. After receiving the amount, both the accused have evaded to register the document in favour of the petitioner and cheated him. On verification, the petitioner came to know that the accused colluded together and with the help of other persons created forged documents as if A.1 is the original owner. The petitioner lodged a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Woraiyur Police Station against A.1 and the first respondent. Both of them have filed Crl.O.P(MD) Nos.22569 and 22671 of 2014 before this Court for anticipatory bail. During pendency of the same, on the representation made on the side of the petitioners that they will settle the matter, this Court referred the matter to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre attached to this Bench. During mediation, the accused persons did not appear before the Mediation Centre and there was no possibility of settlement and therefore the matter was referred back to the Court. When this Court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to them, they sought permission to withdraw the said petitions and this Court granted permission and accordingly the same were dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, the investigation of the case was transferred to the second respondent police and taken on file in Crime No.5 of 2015 on 24.03.2015 for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471 and 474 IPC and the second respondent arrested A.1, Muthukumar and remanded him to judicial custody. Thereafter the first respondent moved a petition for anticipatory bail before the Vacation Sessions Court, Tiruchirappalli in Crl.M.P.No.1068 of 2015, suppressing the fact that he has already approached this Court for anticipatory bail and the same was dismissed as withdrawn and in the petition before the learned Vacation Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli, he specifically mentioned that the petitioner has not moved any anticipatory bail application before the Higher Forum and this Court.The learned Vacation Sessions Judge without considering the gravity of the offences and also the fact that a number of persons were cheated by the first respondent and A.1, granted anticipatory bail to the first respondent on the ground that the first respondent only introduced A.1 to the petitioner and did not receive any amount. The learned Vacation Sessions Judge failed to see the fact that Rs.2 crores was paid to the first respondent and A.1.Therefore the petitioner has come up with the present petition for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted in favour of the first respondent by the learned Vacation Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the averments made in the petition.

4. The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the learned Vacation Sessions Judge after considering all the facts and also considering the fact that the first respondent only introduced the petitioner to A.1 and also appreciating the part played by the first respondent, granted anticipatory bail in favour of the first respondent. He further submitted that the first respondent is complying with the condition imposed by the learned Vacation Sessions Judge and he has not suppressed any facts. According to him, the petition for anticipatory bail filed before the learned Vacation Sessions Judge is the first petition