Allowed

V.Sanjeevi v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC4 Sept 2014CRL OP(MD)/16371/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court allowed a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioners were accused of creating false documents to sell land. The court enlarged them on bail subject to conditions including daily police interrogation and execution of bonds.

What did the court decide?

Enlargement of petitioners on bail subject to conditions of daily police interrogation, execution of bonds with sureties, and appearance before the Magistrate within 15 days.

V.Sanjeevi Vs the Inspector of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Thursday, the Fourth day of September Two Thousand Fourteen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶6

CRL OP(MD)Nos.16371 & 16372 of 2014

¶7

V.SANJEEVI ..PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4 in Crl.O.P(MD)No.16371/2014 C.GANESAN PREM ..PETITIONERS 1 & 2/ACCUSED 2 & 3 in Crl.O.P(MD)No.16372/2014

¶8

Vs.

¶9

STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH/ ANTI LAND GRABBING SPECIAL CELL, KARUR DISTRICT.

¶10

CR.NO.19/2014 RESPECTIVELY

¶11

..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT in Both the Petitions

¶12

For Petitioner : M/S.E.K.KUMARESAN Advocate in Both the Petitions

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.K.ANBARASAN, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶14

in Both the Petitions

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶17

The petitioners, who are arrayed as A2 to A4, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 420, 465 and 506(i) of IPC., in Crime No.19 of 2014, on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.

¶18

The prosecution case is that by creating false documents, the accused have sold the land of the defacto complainant to an extent of 1.34 cents.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that one Palanisamy was the owner of the land to an extent of 10.1/4 cents in S.No.30, Andangovil Kheelpagam Village, Kheelpagam Panchayat, Thoanthoni Union, Karur Division. By a sale deed dated 18.02.1994, he sold the property to one C.Kandasamy. The said Kandasamy had executed a power of attorney dated 24.11.2014 in favour of the A1 to sell the property. Accordingly, A1 sold the property by a registered sale deed to one C.Ganesan on 08.11.2005.

¶20

The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners had sold the land to an extent of 10.1/4 cents as purchased by his power of attorney through sale deed dated 18.02.1994, but in the northern boundary, the earlier sale deed and power of attorney was mentioned as south of Venugopal land. But in the subsequent sale deed, it is mentioned as South of Venugopal and Periyasamy. The learned counsel submitted that the entire evidence is borne out of the records and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary.

¶21

Heard the learned Government Advocate (crl.side) for the

¶22

respondent.

¶23

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am

¶24

inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail, with certain conditions.

¶25

Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in

¶26

the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Karur, and on each of them executing 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 learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioners shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m., until further orders, for interrogation. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Scrupulously.

¶27

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

¶28

sd/-

¶29

04/09/2014 / TRUE COPY /

¶30

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, KARUR.

¶31

2 -do-thro'THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KARUR.

¶32

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

¶33

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH/ANTI LAND GRABBING SPECIAL CELL, KARUR DISTRICT.

¶34

+2. CC to M/S.E.K.KUMARESAN Advocate SR.No.49917 & 49919

¶35

ORDER IN

¶36

CRL OP(MD)Nos.16371 & 16372 of 2014

¶37

Date :04/09/2014

¶38

PBK 09/09/2014 ::2P-7C:

¶39

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

V.Sanjeevi v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Sanjeevi 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

Thirumalai Ammal Vs the Inspector of Police

G.S. Mohanraj Vs the Inspector of Police

Vimala Vs the Inspector of Police

Ganesan Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Natarajan Vs the Inspector of Police

K. Jeyaprakash Vs the Inspector of Police