Allowed

Veeraputhiran v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC24 Nov 2020CRL OP(MD)/830/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court disposed of an anticipatory bail petition filed by Accused No.1 in a cheating case. Having satisfied the court by paying the remaining sale consideration, the petitioner was granted absolute anticipatory bail on conditions.

What did the court decide?

The interim anticipatory bail granted on 24.02.2020 was made absolute. The respondent police directed to return the original sale deed registered in favour of the petitioner forthwith.

Veeraputhiran Vs The Inspector of Police — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶4

Date : 24/11/2020

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶7

CRL OP(MD).No.830 of 2020

¶8

Veeraputhiran ... Petitioner/Accused No.1

¶9

¶10

The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Virudhunagar District. Cr.No.1 of 2020. ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervener : Mr.Mohammed Ayub, Advocate

¶11

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

¶12

PRAYER :-

¶13

For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.1 of 2020 on the file of the Respondent Police.

¶14

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶15

The petitioner, who is arrayed as Accused No.1, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under sections 120 IPC, in Crime No.1 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶16

2.The case of the prosecution is that the total sale consideration for the subject property is fixed at Rs.12 Croers, in which, the defacto complainant received a sum of Rs.7 Crores as an advance. For the remaining sale consideration, the petitioner agreed to pay on the date of execution of the sale deed. Out of the said balance, the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.1 Crore 10 lakhs to the defacto complainant's husband. The remaining sale consideration of Rs.3 Crores 90 lakhs has not been paid by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner.

¶17

¶18

3.This Court by order dated, 24.02.2020 in Crl.O.P(MD)No.830 of 2020, granted interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Now, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.3 Crores 90 lakhs.

¶19

4.While granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner, the original sale seed executed in favour of the petitioner was deposited before the respondent. While extending the interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner, this Court directed the petitioner to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.3 Crores and 90 lakhs on or before 20.11.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner has also paid the balance consideration of Rs.3 Crores and 90 lakhs by way of demand draft to the defacto complainant and his family members in the following manner:

¶20

i.Meharaban Beevi-DD No.336458 - Rs.78,00,000/ii.Mohamed Salim - DD No.336456 – Rs.78,00,000/iii.Aishah Bee - DD No.336457 – Rs.78,00,000/iv.Zareena Beebi – DD No.336454 – Rs.78,00,000/v.Kamaruddin - DD No.336455 – Rs.78,00,000/---------------Total - Rs.3,90,00,000/----------------

¶21

5.The learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant/intervenor also acknowledged the payment made by the petitioner herein.

¶22

6.Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the interim anticipatory bail earlier granted is made absolute on condition that the respondent is directed to return the original document registered in favour of the petitioner to the petitioner forthwith in addition to the conditions already imposed.

¶23

sd/24/11/2020 / TRUE COPY / / /2020

¶24

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

¶25

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ concerned.

¶26

¶27

¶28

THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE No.II, VIRUDHUNAGAR, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.

¶29

DO-THROUGH : THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT AT SRIVILIPUTTUR. 3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT. 4. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶30

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.830 of 2020 Date :24/11/2020 VSD TE/PN/SAR-III : 27/11/2020 : 3P/5C

¶31

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

Veeraputhiran v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veeraputhiran 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

Maideen Vs The Inspector of Police

R.Muthukrishnan Vs The Inspector of Police

Johnson Vs The Inspector of Police

Golam Mortoja Vs State by

Dhandapani Vs the Inspector of Police

Arikrihnan Vs State Rep.by