Dismissed

Kala v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC8 Sept 2021CRL OP(MD)/3677/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court rejected the petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. The Court held that the petitioners were not fit cases for bail and required custodial interrogation due to allegations of forging pattas and executing a fake sale deed.

What did the court decide?

The petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed. The Court held the petitioners were not fit cases for anticipatory bail and required custodial interrogation.

Kala Vs The Inspector of Police — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.3677 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 08/09/2021 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice B.PUGALENDHI CRL OP(MD). No.3677 of 2021

¶3

Kala, 2. Karthick, ... Petitioners/Accused

¶4

¶5

State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Sankarankovil Town Police Station, Tirunelveli District. Cr.No. 25 of 2021. ... Respondent/Complainant

¶6

For Petitioners : M/s.Selvan T, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthilkumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶7

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

¶8

PRAYER :-

¶9

For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.25 of 2021 on the file of the Respondent Police.

¶10

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶11

The petitioners/A1 and A2, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent Police, for the offence punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC, in Crime No.25 of 2021, on the file of the respondent Police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶12

The case of the prosecution is that a property situated in T.S.Nos.2/1 and 2/2, Ward B, Block-5 at Gomathy Nagar Colony, Sankarankovil, belongs to the defacto complaint's Society and one Kutralingam Asari's son and wife, namely, Arumugam and Parvathyammal jointly. The petitioners/A1 and A2, who are mother and son, created bogus forged pattas and with that forged pattas, she executed sale deed in favour of his son. Hence, the complaint.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocents and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submits that the pattas are not forged one. The first petitioner had executed sale deed in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ strength of patta Nos.206 and 112. Therefore, they are genuine documents issued by the Revenue Authorities and the petitioners are ready to establish the same before the Investigation Officer.

¶14

CRL OP(MD). No.3677 of 2021

¶15

In view of the above said submissions, this Court, vide order dated 17.08.2021, granted interim anticipatory bail to the petitioners for a period of two weeks, enabling them to appear before the respondent Police for enquiry and to place all the materials in their favour before the concerned Investigation Officer. The respondent Police was also directed to file a report.

¶16

Today, when the matter came up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent Police submitted the enquiry report.

¶17

This Court also perused the enquiry report submitted by the respondent Police.

¶18

A perusal of the enquiry report reveals that the properties in dispute belong to defacto complainant's sangam and one Kutralingam Asari's son and wife, namely, Arumugam and Parvathyammal and there is a joint patta in their names. The patta produced by the petitioners is a bogus one.

¶19

Considering the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner, this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners and it requires for custodial interrogation of the petitioners to find out as to how the patta has been prepared in favour of the first petitioner, who are all the persons involved in preparing this bogus patta in favour of the first petitioner.

¶20

Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶21

sd/08/09/2021 / TRUE COPY /

¶22

/ /2021 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶23

OGY

¶24

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 concerned.

¶25

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

¶27

SANKARANKOVIL TOWN POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.

¶28

CRL OP(MD). No.3677 of 2021

¶29

2.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶30

ORDER IN

¶31

SB/JC/SAR-III/06.10.2021/3P/3C

¶32

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

Kala v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kala 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

Prabhakaran Vs The Inspector of Police

Murugan Vs The Inspector of Police

Vasanthi Vs The Inspector of Police

P.Maruthu Pandi Vs The Sub Inspector of Police

K.Manikandan Vs The Sub Inspector of Police

R.Satyanarayana @ Sathiyanarayana Vs The Inspector of Police