This Criminal Original Petition seeks cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondents in a property fraud case. The court examined the Trial Court's elaborate reasoning and found the petition lacked merit, dismissing it without interference.
No relief granted; the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed and the bail remains active.
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.
CRL O.P. No.15674 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 18.10.2024
CORAM
The Hon`ble Mr.Justice P.DHANABAL
Crl. O.P. No.15674 of 2024
S. Mangal Raj S/o. Sundarraj …. Petitioner
vs
1. State represented by:- The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, CLG-I, Sholinganallur, Tambaram Commissionarate. ... 1st Respondent / Complainant [Cr. No.59 of 2021]
PRAYER: - The Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 439(2)
of Criminal Procedure Code praying to cancel the bail granted to the 2 to
4 respondents / Accused No.1 to 3 vide order passed in Crl. M.P. No.662
of 2024 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu dated 23.04.2024.
For Petitioner : Mr. R. Ganesh Kumar
1/7
CRL O.P. No.15674 of 2024
For Respondents : Mr. A.L. Ganthimathi, Senior counsel for Mr. L. Palanimuthu [for R2] Mr. S. Santhosh [for R1] Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner to cancel the bail granted to the respondents 2 to 4 in Crl. M.P. No.662 of 2024 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu dated 23.04.2024.
2/7
CRL O.P. No.15674 of 2024
petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the properties. The petitioner has also filed the tax to the said properties in his name. He had also applied for patta through online and at that time, he came to know that the property purchased by them was dealt with illegally by creating forged documents. On verification it was found that the Power of Attorney, on the strength of which document, the 1st accused had purchased the property through Doc. No.773 of 2003 does not contain the Survey No.251/1 of Jamin Pallavaram Village. Therefore, the 1st accused knowing fully well that he is creating a document of title from the parent document, which does not contain the said Survey number. Therefore, he lodged the complaint before the police. The 4th and 5th accused were arrested and released on bail vide order dated 28.02.2024. The 1 to 3 accused / 2 to 4 respondents herein have filed a petition for anticipatory bail and the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu had granted anticipatory bail to them through an order dated 23.04.2024. The learned Sessions Judge failed to consider the severe nature of offences and also held that the dispute is civil in nature and the civil suit is pending. The above said observations is not correct and the offences
3/7
CRL O.P. No.15674 of 2024
are grave in nature, but the Trial Court has granted anticipatory bail and therefore, the anticipatory bail granted to the accused 1 to 3 has to be cancelled.
4/7
CRL O.P. No.15674 of 2024
appearing for the 1st respondent also admitted that the 2 to 4 respondents / accused 1 to 3 have complied the condition imposed by the Court.
that the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu has passed an elaborate order after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case that already the co-accused were released on bail after arrest and the alleged offences are born out of records and all the records are available with the investigation officer. Hence the grounds raised by the petitioners that the learned Sessions Judge failed to consider the severe gravity of the offences and simply recorded that disputes are civil in nature, is not an acceptable one, since he has passed
an elaborate order after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case. Further, the trial Court has also imposed some conditions not to
5/7
CRL O.P. No.15674 of 2024
alienate the property, therefore, the order is a very reasoned one and does not warrant any interference of this Court and there is no grounds found to cancel the bail granted to the respondents 2 to 4 / accused 1 to 3. Hence, this petition has no merits and deserves to be dismissed.
costs.
18.10.2024
index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order mjs
To
6/7
CRL O.P. No.15674 of 2024
P.DHANABAL, J mjs
CRL.O.P. No.15674 of 2024
19.09.2024
7/7
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should cancel the anticipatory bail granted by the Trial Court in a property dispute case involving alleged forgery under IPC.
Whether the Trial Court's order granting bail was reasoned enough and based on all facts and circumstances to warrant interference.
Whether the petitioners as defacto complainants have any ground to interfere with the bail granted to the respondents.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
S. Mangal Raj
A. Ramamoorthy
E. Jayalakshmi
P.R. Elangovan
The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch
P.DHANABAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
