The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a judicious consideration of bail applications, especially in cases involving serious allegations such as fraudulent property transactions.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original petition has been filed under Sections 439(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to cancel the bail order dated 04.07.2022 made in Crl.M.P.No.16896 of 2022 passed by the learned CCB & CBCID Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai for the failure of the learned trial Court in according a hearing to the victim-defacto complainant and absence of application of judicial mind adverting to the guidelines of athe Hon''ble Supreme Court.)

1. This Criminal Original petition has been filed seeking to cancel the bail order dated 04.07.2022 made in Crl.M.P.No.16896 of 2022 passed by the learned CCB & CBCID Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant and her husband purchased the property from the petitioner through his power agent one Subramanian who is none other than the 1 st accused for a valuable consideration of Rs.1,50,00,000/- through a duly registered sale deed Document No.356/2013 dated 23.01.2013 and she gave additional of Rs.3,00,000/- for mutating the revenue records in her name. Thereafter the defacto complainant and her husband went to Dubai hence they appointed one Subramaniyan (A1) to maintain the property. On 28.05.2019 the defacto complainant went to visit the above said property there was some construction works and when the same was questioned by her, the workers gave reply that the work had been doing on the instruction of the land owner and hence she checked the EC for the property and property was transferred to Nageshwari and Arunkumar on the basis of the Judgment in O.S.No.185 of 2015. In that case, the de-facto complainant was also arrayed as one of the defendant and the accused No.1 gave vakalath to an advocate for himself and also for the defacto complainant and voluntarily not contested the suit and the same was ordered in favour of the plaintiffs. The defacto complainant questioned the same to the accused No.1 for that he threatened the defacto complainant and her husband and hence the crime was registered. Therefore, the second respondent along with other accused persons had cheated the defacto complainant.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an extent of 2.82 acres in S.No.216/1 of Village Valasaravakkam belonged to one Mrs.Thayammal. Since Mrs.Thayammal did not have any child, she executed a settlement deed vide document No.2005/1945 in which the said property was conveyed to her 3rd brother Shanmugham Chetty at item No. 6 of the deed. He further submitted that Mrs. Santhakumari is the daughter of Shanmugam Chetty. It is pertinent to mention here that the Poonamallee District Munsif Court had decreed in O.S.No.797 of 1974 dated 17.11.1980 that the said property belonged to R.Parvathy and D.Thayammal and not Mrs.Santhakumari and thus she lost her title to the part of the said property.

4. He further submitted that the said Mrs.Santhakumari entered into a sale agreement with Mr AD.Govindaraj Naicker and failed to execute the sale deed for the remaining portion of the land in the subject land in S.No.216/1. Chengalpattu Sub Court, passed its Judgment in OS.No.63 of 1984 wherein specific performance of execution of sale deed for the said property in favour of the petitioner/AD Govindaraja Naicker. On the strength of this decree Mrs.Santhakumari executed sale deeds to persons nominated by AD Govindaraj vide registered sale deed No.968 to 972,976, 978, 981, 983, 984 and 989 of 1986 in favour of Mr.R.Kanniyappan, Mr KS Ekambaram and various others. Thus title for the entire property in the Survey No.216/1 was thus lost by Accused No.3.

5. The property in Plot No.22 was purchased by KS Ekambaram vide document No.975/1986 and subsequently sold to Mr.Rangaraj vide document No.1308 /1986 and the same was settled in favour of his wife Nageshwari and son Arun kumar (1200 sq feed each) vide document No.5251 of 2010. Further, on 23.02.2012, suppressing loss of title in the subject property, Mrs. Santhakumar