The main legal point established is the requirement for specific reasons and a change in circumstances for granting anticipatory bail in a subsequent petition, and the consequences of abuse of process of law and non-cooperation in the investigation after obtaining bail.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer in Crl.O.P.No. 2891 of 2023 : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 439(2) of Criminal Procedure Code to cancel the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.3718 of 2022 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Erode, dated 13.12.2022.

in Crl.O.P.No. 2930 of 2023 : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 439(2) of Criminal Procedure Code to cancel the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.3717 of 2022 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Erode, dated 13.12.2022.

in Crl.O.P.No. 3037 of 2023 : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 439(2) of Criminal Procedure Code to cancel the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.3716 of 2022 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Erode, dated 13.12.2022.)

1. The petitioner herein is the defacto complainant viz., S. Sathya Saravanan, represented through her power agent filed this petition praying to cancel the bail granted to the respondents 1 and 2 in Crl.M.P.No.3716, 3717, 3718 and 3739 of 2022 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Erode dated 13.12.2022 pertaining to Accused Nos.1 to 6 in Crime No. 10 of 2022 for the alleged offence under Sec. 120B, 418, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 109 of I.P.C. on the file of District Crime Branch, Erode.

2. The defacto complainant/petitioner herein is the daughter-in-law of accused Gunasekaran and Krishnaveni, who are arrayed as A1 and A2 and she got married to their son Guhan on 08.09.2005 and thereafter she is now residing in New Zealand and she is working as Software Engineer. While so, at the instance of A1 Gunasekaran, she gave a power of attorney in his favour in the year of 2011 through a registered power of attorney and by using her money given as dowry of Rs.10 lakhs and remaining balance sum of Rs.10 lakhs belong to A2, through her power agent (A1), they purchased a land measuring 11 acres 18 cents through a registered sale deed dated 18.01.2022, in which, the defacto complainant and her mother-in-law (A2) having equal shares in that property. However, due to a family dispute, she obtained a decree of divorce from A1''s son Guhan on 14.09.2021 in the court of New Zealand. Previously, with regard to division of property, a suit was filed by the brother of A1 in O.S. No.72 of 2013 against this petitioner and her husband, her in-laws before IV Addl. District Judge, Erode at Bhavani. Since A1 Gunasekaran/father-in-law acting against the interest of defacto complainant and her children, she revoked the said Power of attorney on 24.02.2020 and the said revocation was duly intimated to A1 through e-mail on 24.02.2020 and also intimated the same through her father to the Sub-Registrar, Bhavani. On 01.04.2021 the defacto complainant, through e-mail also intimated such revocation to the IV Addl. District Judge, Bhavani. Thereafter, she executed a power of attorney in favour of her father on 16.07.2021. In the said circumstances, on suppressing the revocation of power of attorney granted to A1, he along with his wife A2 fraudulently created a registered partition deed allotting 10 acres 93 cents to his wife Krishnaveni (A2) and allotting meagre extent of 25 cents to the defacto complainant on the strength of a fraudulent life certificate. However, her father died on 12.02.2022, hence, she came to India to attend funeral. At that time, A6 Medical Officer has given a false life certificate as if she appeared before her on 23.02.2022, in fact, she has not put any signature in the life certificate nor she appeared before the medical officer. On colluding with the other attesting witnesses A3 to A5, A1 and A2 created a partition deed without her knowledge in order to grab the property worth about Rs.5 crores. Hence, she gave a complaint against them and the same was registered in Crime No.10 of 2022.

3. Thereafter, on knowing about the registration of F.I.R., the accused persons 1 to 5 approached the District Court seeking for anticipatory bail in Crl.M.P.No. 2880, 2881, 2882 of 2