IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 03.03.2022

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN

Crl.O.P.No.4374 of 2022

and Crl.M.P.No.2745 of 2022

Mohammed Akmaluddin

.. Petitioner

Vs.

The State rep. by

.. Respondent

The Inspector of Police,

CCB-I Police Station,

Chennai CCB,

Chennai.

(Crime No.204 of 2021)

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 439

of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime.No.204

of 2021 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj for

Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi

For Respondent : M/s.G.V.Kasthuri

Additional Public Prosecutor

For Intervener : Mr.A.Saravanan

ORDER

The petitioner/A1, who was arrested and remanded to judicial

custody on 01.02.2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 465,

467, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. in Crime No.204 of 2021, on the file of

the respondent police, seeks bail.

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

counsel for the intervener.

3.Based on the F.I.R. given by one Mahavirchand, Power of Agent

of the legal heirs of the deceased Manjula Bhatt, a complaint has

been registered by the respondent police on 16.11.2021 for the

offences under sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. The crux of

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

the complaint is that the petitioner herein who entered into a rental

agreement in respect of the premises, has created a fake and forged

rental agreement as if Manjula Bhatt had executed the deed dated

01.07.2016. However, in fact, the said Manjula Bhatt died on

31.01.2016. Pursuant to this forged rental agreement, it is further

alleged that the petitioner herein has produced the rental agreement

to Registrar of Companies, got his company registered and thereafter

not paid the rent to the landlord and refused to vacate the premises.

4.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in respect

of the disputed premises, the petitioner herein initially entered

into the rental agreement with Manjula Bhatt and her sister Praveena

Bhatt. The said Praveena Bhatt representing for herself and on

behalf of her sister. In view of the documents executed by Praveena

Bhatt and believing the words of Praveena Bhatt, the other documents

were executed by her sister Manjula Bhatt, entered into rental

agreement and in occupation of the disputed property, also rent

control proceedings was initiated before the Small Causes Court in

R.C.O.P.No.595 of 2018 against Manjula Bhatt and Praveena Bhatt.

Whileso, an attempt is made to illegally vacate him without due

process of law and this complaint is outcome of such attempt.

5.On perusing the F.I.R, this Court finds that probably a rental

agreement has been created in the name of a dead person that has been

used by the petitioner herein to get his company registered before

the R.O.C. However, for investigating this case, detaining the

petitioner in prison may not be required. It is suffice to grant

bail to the petitioner.

6.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail

subject to the following conditions;

(a)

the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties, each

for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore.

(b) the sureties shall affix their photographs and

Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned

Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar Card or Bank

Pass Book to ensure their identity;

(c)

the petitioner is directed to appear before the

Investigating Officer daily at 10.30 a.m. until further

orders.

(d)

the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or

witness either during investigation or trial;

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

(e)

on breach of any of the aforesaid