Partly allowed

Ravi v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC5 Dec 2013CRL OP(MD)/20408/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court considered a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioner challenged charges including cheating, forgery, and criminal intimidation. The court observed that the matter appeared to be primarily civil in nature regarding property disputes involving a settlement deed. Anticipatory bail was granted subject to strict compliance with

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail in event of arrest by executing personal bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties of Rs.10,000 each, subject to daily police appearance for 3 weeks.

Ravi Vs the Inspector of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶2

Thursday, the Fifth day of December Two Thousand Thirteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.20408 of 2013

¶6

RAVI ... PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED

¶7

THE STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE RADHAPURAM POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. CRIME NO.237/2013 ... RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT

¶8

For Petitioner : M/S.V.SASIKUMAR Advocate For Respondent : M/.S.K.V.RAJARAJAN,

¶9

Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶10

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.

¶11

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶12

The petitioner, who is the sole accused, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 420,448, 294(b) and 506 (i) I.P.C., which are said to have been committed on 30.03.2011 in Crime No.237 of 2013 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶13

According to the defacto complainant, she is the owner of the properties bearing Survey Nos.81-1C and 2C and she is in possession and enjoyment of the same and the petitioner/accused by fabricating documents got patta in respect of the property owned and possessed by her.

¶14

Leaned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the property in question was originally owned by his father and he had purchased the same in the year 1992 and in the year 2012 executed a settlement deed in his favour and based on the same he obtained patta and it was issued showing incorrect survey number and therefore he made a representation to the concerned authorities and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the said representation is pending consideration. In the meanwhile the defacto complainant, who is none other than the sister-in-law of

¶15

the petitioner lodged a false complaint. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter is purely civil in nature, which has been given the colour of criminality.

¶16

Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the petitioner by fabricating documents managed to get patta and the investigation is pending.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor and on executing a personal 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 learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 11.00 a.m. for a period of three weeks, thereafter as and when required for interrogation. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously.

¶18

The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed.

¶19

/ TRUE COPY /

¶20

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶21

¶22

1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE VALLIYOOR

¶23

2.DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT

¶24

3.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI

¶25

4.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

¶26

RADHAPURAM POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT +1. CC to M/S.V.SASIKUMAR Advocate SR.No.60603 RL/6 C- 9/12/2013

¶27

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

Ravi v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Adaikalaraj Vs the Inspector of Police

S. Karthigaiselvan Vs the Inspector of Police

Lakshmanan Vs the Inspector of Police

Chellakali Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

A.G.Sakthi Vs the Inspector of Police

Muthu Vs the Superintendent of Police