MADRAS HIGH COURT
N.SOUNDARRAJAN @ SOUNTHAR – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE REP BY ITS, – Respondent
CRL OP/32314/2022
ANTICIPATORY BAIL - OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 419, 465, 467, 468, 471 R/W 34 OF IPC - SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 419, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w 34 of IPC in Cr.No.122 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police. The case of the prosecution is that the accused tried to grab the property belongs to the wife of the defacto complainant by way of impersonation and creation of fake documents.
Finding of the Court:
Taking into consideration the facts and the submissions made by both counsel and also taking note of the fact that the alleged power of attorney and sale deed were cancelled, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in the given circumstances?
Ratio Decidendi: The court observed that the alleged power of attorney and sale deed were cancelled and the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail.
Final Decision: Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on her appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, CCB Court, Egmore on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed.
Crl.OP.No.32314 of 2022
Crl.OP.No.32314 of 2022
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under
Sections 419, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w 34 of IPC in Cr.No.122 of 2021 on the
file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the accused tried to grab the
property belongs to the wife of the defacto complainant by way of
impersonation and creation of fake documents. Hence, the complaint.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
the petitioner has not committed any such offence as alleged by the
prosecution and due to political vengeance, he has been falsely roped in, in
this case. He would also submit that he is neither involved in any creation of
fake document nor stood as witness to any of the document. Anyhow, the
property has been handed over to the defacto complainant after cancelling the
alleged sale deed and he is in possession of the property. He also submits that
the co-accused were already released on bail by this Court vide order dated
25.08.2011 in Crl.OP.No.14927 of 2021. Hence, the learned counsel prays to
grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.32314 of 2022
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the
wife of the defacto complainant is the owner of the property viz., vacant land
measuring an extent of 2400 sq.ft situated in S.No.83/3 and 121/2 Mankali
Neediman Nagar, 5th Street, Plot No.51 Kolathur Village, Ayanavaram Taluk.
The accused in collusion with each other tried to grab the said property and
A1 impersonated the defacto complainant and created power of attorney in
favour of A2, who in turn sold the property to A3 and A3 sold the property to
one Deepa. He would further submit that the petitioner is the main person
behind the entire crime and only created fake documents through others and
he only arranged the impersonator. He admits the alleged sale deed said to be
executed in favour of one Siva Kumar. As per the order passed by this Court
dated 25.08.2021 in Crl.OP.No.14927 of 2021, fake power of attorney and
sale deed were cancelled on 07.09.2021. He also submits that the subject
issue with regard to 2400 sq.ft of the property belongs to the defacto
complainant's family, now restored. He would further submit that
investigation was completed. Hence, he would vehemently oppose to grant
anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
2/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.32314 of 2022
5.Taking into consideration the facts and the submissions made by both
counsel and also taking note of the fact that the alleged power of attorney and
sale deed were cancelled, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to
the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail in the
event of arrest or on her appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the
date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial
Magistrate, CCB Court, Egmore on condition that the petitioner shall
execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with
two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police
or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned
Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall
stand dismissed and on further condition that:
(a)the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their
photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and
the Court concerned may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or
Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;
3/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.32314 of 2022
(b)the petitioner shall report before the respondent
police on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two
months;
(c)the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witne
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.