Dismissed

M.S.Rahmathulla v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC4 Feb 2015CRL OP(MD)/1364/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a Criminal Original Petition for anticipatory bail. The petitioner, accused of forging documents and purchasing properties with full knowledge of the falsity, was found ineligible for bail as custodial interrogation was deemed essential to recover fake documents.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition for Anticipatory Bail stands dismissed; petitioner not inclined to be granted bail.

M.S.Rahmathulla Vs the Inspector of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

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

¶2

Wednesday, the Fourth day of February Two Thousand Fifteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr Justice P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.1364 of 2015

¶6

M.S.RAHMATHULLA ... PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.1

¶7

THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE (LAND-GRABBING CELL), CANTONMENT POLICE STATION, TRICHY CITY,TRICHY. (CR.NO.10 OF 2014) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT

¶8

For Petitioner : M/S.M.SANKAR Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.P.BALASUBRAMANIAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶9

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

¶10

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶11

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC , in Crime No.10 of 2014, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶12

A detailed counter affidavit has been filed objecting to the grant of Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner. It is seen from the counter that the de facto complainant and his wife purchased three plots in TVS Toll Gate area under two registered documents in their names. The property was purchased in the year 1983. The property tax assessment also stands in the name of the de facto complainant and his wife. The petitioner/accused appears to be a total stranger to the properties. While so, the petitioner/accused claims that he has purchased the said property from one Durairaj. Unfortunately, the said Durai Raj died on 31.08.2009. The petitioner/accused has created encumbrance on the property of the de facto complainant by registering sale deeds in respect of the property. The petitioner/accused has created the following forged documents.

1.Doc No.257/2002

2.Doc.No.1007/2004

3.Doc.No.3105/2005

4.Doc.No.2832/2009

5.Doc.No.403/1983 6.Doc.No.7902/83 7.Doc.No.313/84

¶18

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner had purchased the property from the said Durai Raj and had sold it to one Raja with compound wall by way of registered sale deed, vide document No.257/2002.

¶19

I am unable to agree with the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, inasmuch as the petitioner knew full well that the said Durai Raj had fabricated document No. 257 of 2002 and with full knowledge, he purchased the said property. Thereafter, all the accused have created a rectification deed of document No.3105 of 2005 in respect of the property belonging to the de facto complainant. In such circumstances, it appears that this petitioner was working in a syndicate in order to usurp the property of the de facto complainant.

¶20

The learned Government Advocate [Criminal Side] submits that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential to recover all the fake documents, which are in his custody.

¶21

Taking into consideration of the serious allegations levelled against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant Anticipatory Bail to him. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition for Anticipatory Bail stands dismissed.

sd/-

04/02/2015

/ TRUE COPY /

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

¶26

¶27

1.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE(LAND-GRABBING CELL), CANTONMENT POLICE STATION, TRICHY CITY,TRICHY.

¶28

2.THE ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶29

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶30

CRL OP(MD) No.1364 of 2015

¶31

RG.10.02.2015 2P.3C.

¶32

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

M.S.Rahmathulla v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.S.Rahmathulla 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

Vijayan Vs the Inspector of Police

Ibrahim Pitchai Vs the Inspector of Police

Sudha Vs the Inspector of Police

S. Devaraj Vs the Sub-Inspector of Police

Ganesan Vs the Inspector of Police

Thiruppathy Vs the Inspector of Police