Madras High Court
Srinivasan vs State Rep. By Its on 22 June, 2020
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No.6754 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.06.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.6754 of 2020
Srinivasan, M/54 years,
S/o.Perumal,
No.24/61, MGR Nagar,
Koladi Road, Kamaraj Nagar,
Thiruvallur – 600 071. ... Petitioner
Vs.
State rep. by its
The Inspector of Police,
Avadi Police Station,
Chennai.
Cr. No.976 of 2019) ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.,
praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in
Crime No.976 of 2019 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Avadi Police
Station, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sarath Chandran
Page 1 of 7
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.No.6754 of 2020
For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz,
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The petitioner who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 506(1), 406 and 420 of IPC, in Crime No.976 of 2019 seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had received a sum of Rs.2,35,000/- to sell his property from the de-facto complainant. Further, the petitioner promised the de-facto complainant within two months the property will be registered in the name of the de- facto complainant. Thereafter, the petitioner did not register the document in the name of the de-facto complainant. The property situated in Survey No.532 in Paruthipattu Village, Thiruvallur District belongs to a Government poramboke land. Hence, the complaint was registered.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Page 2 of 7 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.6754 of 2020 petitioner owned property to an exteny of 611 sq.ft. It is admittedly, Government poramboke land. Thereafter, nothing known about the property, he purchased the same. Unfortunately, the said property was taken by the Government Removal Encroachment property. He would further submit that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Therefore, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that suppression of the fact that the said land was in a Government poramboke land, received a sum of Rs.2,35,000/- from the de-facto complainant. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.
5. It is seen that admittedly, the Government poramboke land measuring 611 sq.ft situated in Survey No.532 in Paruthipattu Village, Thiruvallur District. Further, the petitioner received a sum of Rs.2,35,000/- from the de-facto complainant and executed sale deed in favour of him in the year 2017 after period of one year the said property was taken over by the Government and removed encroachment of the de- Page 3 of 7 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.6754 of 2020 facto complainant.
6. Considering the above fact and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.
7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Poonamallee, 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 Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.
[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation.Page 4 of 7
http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.6754 of 2020 [c] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.
[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].
[f]If the accused thereafter abscond/s, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.
22.06.2020 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order msrm To
1. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II Poonamallee.
2. The Inspector of Police, Avadi Police Station, Chennai.
3. The Public Prosecutor, Page 5 of 7 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.6754 of 2020 Madras High Court, Chennai.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J msrm Crl.O.P.No. 6754 of 2020 22.06.2020 Page 6 of 7 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.6754 of 2020 Page 7 of 7 http://www.judis.nic.in