COMMON ORDER

The petitioners in Crl. O.P. No.10271/21 who are sought to be arrayed as accused in the alteration report filed by the respondent in Crime No.12 of 2021 for the offence u/s 120 (B), 465, 468, 471, 477 (A), 420 r/w 34 IPC, seek anticipatory bail.

2. While the petitioner in Crl. O.P. No.10645/21, who has been arrayed as A-3 in the aforesaid crime number, the petitioner in Crl. O.P. No.11421/21 is sought to be arrayed as accused in the aforesaid crime number and they have filed the respective petitions seeking anticipatory bail. Crl. O.P. No.11574/21 is also filed for anticipatory bail by the petitioner, who is implicated in the crime, but even according to the petitioner, his rank as an accused is not known.

3. Though the petitions were heard on three different dates, as all the four petitions relate to one and the same crime and revolves around the same transaction, where the petitioners have been implicated and as the facts are interconnected, they are disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the accused, as mentioned in the FIR and in the alteration report and also the other persons, who have been implicated in the crime, will be referred to either by the rank as accused assigned to them or by their name/designation, as no rank is assigned to them either by the law enforcing agency or the Court, as shown hereunder :-

4. Before adverting to the prosecution case, the way in which the lands have changed hands could be stated briefly for a better understanding of the case. A-1 had entered into an agreement in the year 2000 with the vendor Venugopal and purchased the lands through registered sale deed in the year 2004 for which he had obtained settlement patta even in the year 2000. Thereafter, A-1 had executed a power of attorney in favour of Vijayakumar. Acquisition proceedings were notified in the year 2016 and the power of attorney, Vijayakumar, sold a portion of land to Hanumantha Rao in the year 2018 for an extent of about 970 sq.mtrs. Thereafter, Hanumantha Rao executed a power of attorney in favour of Selvam in the year 2018 and in the very same year, Selvam purchased the property from Hanumantha Rao. Thereafter, during July, 2018 or thereabouts, compensation was paid for the lands by the DRO (NHAI-LA), which was received by A-1 and Selvam.

5. It is the case of the prosecution that in the proceedings relating to acquisition of lands for the Chennai Bangalore National Highway, based on a forged document, A-1, in connivance with A-2 and A-3, who were the Assistant Settlement Officer and Tahsildar, had obtained settlement patta and patta as Punjai Anadheenam for the lands, which were Meikal Anadheenam lands, and using the said patta and the forged documents, A-1 had received compensation in a sum exceeding Rs.30 Crores for the said lands, which were acquired and that the petitioners herein, who were the DRO (NHAI-LA) and Retired Surveyor along with the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), without properly verifying the documents and the title of A-1 to the said lands and the genuineness of the documents placed before them, connived with A-1 and settled the sum exceeding Rs.30 Crores to A-1 and, thereby, caused heavy loss to the exchequer. On the complaint of the present Tahsildar/defacto complainant, the complaint was lodged, which was taken on file and registered, leading to investigation by the law enforcing agency.

6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in Crl. O.P.

No.10271/21 submitted that the alteration report is nothing but misuse of power by the respondent to rope in the petitioners, who have not done anything wrong. It