This judgment dismisses a petition for anticipatory bail filed by G.Kathiresan. The court found serious allegations of cheating and criminal conspiracy underlying the complaint. Consequently, the request for bail was rejected.
Anticipatory bail prayer dismissed; petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )
Monday, the Twenty Third day of February Two Thousand Fifteen
PRESENT
The Hon`ble Mr Justice P.N.PRAKASH
CRL OP(MD) No.13023 of 2014
G.KATHIRESAN ... PETITIONER/1st ACCUSED
STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CITY CRIME BRANCH, TRICHY. CR. NO. 12 OF 2014. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
For Petitioner : M/S.S.R.RAJAGOPAL Advocate
For Respondent : MR.A.P.BALASUBRAMANI Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)
PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 406, 409, 417, 420 and 120(B) IPC, in Crime No.12 of 2014 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
"2. The case of the de facto complainant is that the petitioner herein approached him and stated that he has a lay out of residential plots and promised to allot 1,200 square feet house plot to the de facto complainant. Accordingly, the de facto complainant agreed to the proposal given by the petitioner and the petitioner registered 1,200 square feet of land in favour of the de facto complainant for a sale consideration of Rs.2,50,000/-. Initially, the petitioner had told the de facto complainant that the value of the plot was only Rs.50,000/-, but when the plot was registered for Rs.2,50,000/-, the de facto complainant questioned him for which the petitioner has explained that only if the plot value is registered at Rs.2,50,000/-, the Banks will issue https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ housing loan for consideration. In February, 2011 the petitioner had taken the defacto complainant to state Bank
of Travancore in Teppakulam Branch and had obtained housing loan of Rs.6,50,000/- in the name of the de facto complainant and thereafter, he has neither built the house nor repaid the Bank amount. Hence, the complaint."
the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant Anticipatory Bail to him. Hence, the petition is dismissed.
sd/-
23/02/2015
/ TRUE COPY /
Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)
TO
ORDER
IN
CRL OP(MD) No.13023 of 2014 Date :23/02/2015 AA/26.02.2015/2p- 3c/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner who apprehends arrest for alleged offences under Sections 406, 409, 417, 420 IPC and 120-B IPC?
Whether the prosecution version demands rejection of the anticipatory bail petition due to serious allegations against the petitioner?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
G.KATHIRESAN
STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CITY CRIME BRANCH, TRICHY.
P.N.PRAKASH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
