SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

MADRAS HIGH COURT
V. BHARATHIDASAN, J
E.ARULMOZHI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE REP BY – Respondent


ORDER

(The case has been heard through video conference)

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 419, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC, in Crime No.44 of 2019, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is an un-

named accused. The allegation is that the property belongs to the father of the defacto complainant and one Sampath, who was arrayed as A2, claiming to be the Power of Attorney Agent of his father, by impersonation, sold the property to various persons and after having sold the property to various persons, he gifted out part of the property to his wife. Based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, the crime has been registered against nine named persons and seven un named-persons. Hence, the complaint.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the bonofide purchaser of the property from A2 and she has purchased the land jointly with her husband for a valuable consideration and impersonation was committed by A2. That apart, already the husband filed anticipatory bail in Crl.O.P.No.12919 of 2019, dated 14.06.2019 and he was enlarged o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top