Petitioner filed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a cheating case. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner actively participated in executing the impugned sale deed as a power of attorney and thus was not entitled to bail.
Anticipatory bail prayer was 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.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )
Thursday, the Seventh day of February Two Thousand Nineteen
PRESENT
The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI
CRL OP(MD) No.22652 of 2018
C.RAJENDRAN ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED No.2
Vs
THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, SUBRAMANIAPURAM, TRICHY DISTRICT. (IN CRIME NO.19/2018) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT
For Petitioner : MR.D.SENTHIL Advocate
For Respondent : MR.K.SUYAMBULINGA BHARATHI,
Government Advocate(Crl. Side)
PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 420 IPC in Crime No.19 of 2018 on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and other accused persons are running a business in the name of Sri Angalaparameswari Real Estate, in which A1 and A3 are Managing Director and the Executive Director respectively. A1 executed a power of attorney [A2]. The defacto complainant purchased the property from A2. Thereafter, the defacto complainant came to know all the plots were sold to third parties. For which, the defacto complainant filed a complaint before the respondent police.
3.The learned counsel petitioner would submit that the petitioner did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he is innocent person. The petitioner is a power of attorney appointed by A1, who is the Managing Director of the Company. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit that
2
the petitioner was in active participation in the execution of sale deed in the capacity of power of attorney. Therefore, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner himself executed a sale deed in favour of the defacto complainant, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.
sd/07/02/2019 / TRUE COPY /
Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO
1.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, SUBRAMANIAPURAM, TRICHY DISTRICT.
2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1. CC to Mr.D.SENTHIL Advocate SR.No.2638
ORDER
IN
CRL OP(MD) No.22652 of 2018 Date :07/02/2019 TK/PN/SAR-IV/22.02.2019/2P/4C
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner who apprehends arrest for alleged cheating and forgery offences.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
C.RAJENDRAN
THE STATE
M.DHANDAPANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
