Dismissed

Swami Kumar v. State Rep by

Madras HC3 Oct 2024CRL OP/10497/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought to extend interim bail granted for settling matters with victims in a real estate fraud case. The Court found the petitioner had failed to secure necessary CMDA approval within the stipulated five months and noted that many victims remained unsettled despite an undertaking. Consequently, the petition to extend interim bail was dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Swami Kumar Vs State Rep by — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.10497 of 2024

¶2

CRL.O.P.No.10497 of 2024

¶3

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶4

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 406, 420 IPC in Crime No.14 of 2024, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶5

According to the petitioner, the petitioner is an innocent person and falsely implicated in this case by the respondent police and he is not having any previous bad antecedent. The petitioner is coming from reputed family and he has never committed any offence as alleged by the respondent police and he is the sole bread winner of his family. Hence this case.

¶6

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays for grant of bail.

¶7

The petitioner herein was already granted interim bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.8601 of 2024 with the conditions. Interim bail was granted with the following condition:

¶8

“(b) the petitioner, within a period of five months from today, shall get necessary approval from the CMDA as per the manner known to law and

¶9

1/4

¶10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶11

Crl.O.P.No.10497 of 2024

¶12

register the sale deeds and give the plots to all the depositors, who had paid money to G.R.Real estates / his father Ramachandran.”

¶13

Accordingly, on or before 17.09.2024, the petitioner ought to have get necessary approval from the CMDA as per the manner known to law in

¶14

order to register the sale deed and give the plots to the victims. But as on date, he was not taken any steps according to the intervenor. Learned Prosecutor also submits that thereafter 131 complaints were received.

¶15

The case of the prosecution is that the father of the petitioner namely G.R.Ramachandran was doing real estate in the name of G.R.Real Estate, collected the amount from the victims by giving and encumbering the subject properties. Subsequently, he died, but no lands were given to victims towards the depositors subsidiaries. In fact, he divided the properties into lay outs in Survey Nos.95/6A, 95/6B, but necessary approval was not obtained. After the death of G.R.Ramachandran, his legal heirs, the petitioner and his brother took charge of the G.R.Real Estate. He was prosecuted at the time of interim bail. He has given an undertaking that within five months, he will get the approval from CMDA and settle the issue, but he has not done so far. However, the learned counsel appearing for the

¶16

2/4

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

Crl.O.P.No.10497 of 2024

¶19

intervenor submits that about Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) was settled and to submit statement of particulars through this Court. There

¶20

are nearly about 37 victims, and around Rs.1,04,00,000/- was settled on various dates. But there were nearly about 10 victims and all were not settled as on date.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one civil suit was filed by the sister claiming as a legal heir of G.R.Ramachandran in O.S.No.150 of 2022 in respect of legal heirs claiming legal heir certificate. But, however, the deceased, G.R.Real Estate owner have immovable properties and after his death, inform the petitioner, but they are not inclined to settle as per the undertaking. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to extend the interim bail.

¶22

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

03.10.2024

rna

3/4

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

Crl.O.P.No.10497 of 2024

¶28

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶29

rna

¶30

CRL.O.P.No.10497 of 2024

¶31

03.10.2024

¶32

4/4

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Swami Kumar v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Swami Kumar v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Assistant General Manager Vs T. Xavier

V.Saroja Vs N.Eswaran

The Authorized Signatory Vs a.Selvam

R Sivakumar Vs the Inspector of Police

Dr.K.Nikitha Vs Dr.Ajay Mal Reventh

P.S.Theleep Kumar Vs the Inspctor of Police