Dismissed

Manikanda Kumar v. the State Rep by the Inspector of Police

Madras HC23 Sept 2021CRL OP/17623/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras considered a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioner, accused of cheating and forgery offences, claimed false implication. The court rejected the plea, holding the petitioner's property was implicated and investigation was underway.

What did the court decide?

Petition seeking anticipatory bail dismissed.

Manikanda Kumar Vs the State Rep by the Inspector of… — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Thursday, the Twenty Third day of September Two Thousand Twenty One

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.17623 of 2021

¶7

MANIKANDA KUMAR [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]

¶8

¶9

[ RESPONDENT ]

¶10

THE STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH,(LAND GRABBING UNIT), CCB -II, VEPERY, CHENNAI-600 007 CRIME NO.72 OF 2021

¶11

For Petitioner : M/S.R.N.GANESH Advocate

¶12

For Respondent : MR.A.GOPINATH, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶13

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

¶14

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶15

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w 109 IPC in Cr.No.72 of 2021, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶16

2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant's mother executed a release deed in favour of defacto complainant and his sister. Thereafter, A-2 impersonated as if she is the mother of the defacto complainant and executed sale deed in favour of A-1, following which, A-4, A-5 and A-6 introduced the impersonator A-2 as if she is the mother of the petitioner/A-4 and opened a bank account in the Axis Bank and also placed documents before the private finance and obtained Rs.55,00,000/- in which the petitioner shown as a nominee for the above transaction. Thereby, the law enforcing agency registered a case against the petitioner.

¶17

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the entire transaction was

¶18

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

¶19

done between the other accused persons and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶20

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the property of the defacto complainant was routed by the petitioner. He further submits that the investigation is in preliminary stage. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶21

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the property of the defacto complainant was said to have grabed by the petitioner and investigation is under way, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶22

Accordingly, this petition seeking anticipatory bail is dismissed.

¶23

This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned

¶24

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

¶25

¶26

1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH,(LAND GRABBING UNIT), CCB -II, VEPERY, CHENNAI-600 007

¶27

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶28

CC to M/S.R.N.GANESH Advocate on payment of necessary charges

¶29

JPA 05/10/2021

¶30

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

Manikanda Kumar v. the State Rep by the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manikanda Kumar v. the State Rep by 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

Kannan Vs the State Rep by

Syed Nasrullah Vs the State Rep by

K.Gowrishankar Vs State Rep by

V.Allimuthu, M/a 55 Years, Vs M.Govindarajulu, M/a 46 Years

Z.Vinoth, Vs Union of India

K.Bakthavatchalam, Vs N.Thirugnanasampatham