This order dismisses a petition for anticipatory bail filed by M. Devendran under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The High Court found the case prima facie involved document fabrication and land grabbing, requiring custodial interrogation, and thus denied bail.
Anticipatory bail was denied and the petition was dismissed.
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.27542 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.12.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Crl.O.P.No.27542 of 2024
M.Devendran
... Petitioner
Vs.
The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch I Vepery, Chennai – 600 007
... Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., pleased to grant Anticipatory bail to the petitioner in Crime No.182 of 2024 on the file of the respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.Manjula M
For Respondent : Mr.S.Santhosh Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
O R D E R
Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.182 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471
IPC, the present petition has been filed seeking anticipatory bail.
Crl.O.P.No.27542 of 2024
Crl.O.P.No.27542 of 2024
Muthusamy, who in turn sold to one Mr.Muthulingam, who is A1, with whom, the petitioner herein, based on the sequence of documents, entered into an agreement of sale on 17.11.2017 to purchase the same, however, later, since the transactions could not be completed, the said agreement of sale came to be cancelled and thereby, the role of the petitioner came to an end by way of cancellation of the sale agreement and he did not commit any offence. The learned counsel would further submit that thus the petitioner is only being an agreement holder has nothing to do with the alleged offence and the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the respondent in the matter of investigation.
investigation reveals that the petitioner is the driver of one Ramaganesan, who is the brother of A1/Muthulingam and the petitioner, at the instance of A1, had entered into a registered sale agreement in order to create encumbrance in respect of the subject property illegally. The investigation reveals that the property was
purchased by one Girija in the year 1964 and 1969 and the original document are
with the legal heirs of Girija. The petitioner though claims that he is only an agreement holder, investigation reveals that the petitioner himself on 02.07.2021
has given a letter to SRO seeking for index correction in respect of sale
Crl.O.P.No.27542 of 2024
agreement in the Document No.189 of 1987 and in the column of “request of index correction”, the petitioner had stated that the document was wrongly shown as mortgage deed instead of sale deed and that earlier document number was not inserted. Further, the petitioner had specifically claimed that he had purchased the property and he is the owner of the property. He would also submit that during the course of investigation, the signature of the petitioner found in the letter tallied with the signature found in the sale agreement and in subsequent cancellation deed. Further, A1 was arrested and he had confessed that the petitioner is an accomplice and he has also assisted them in the creation of fabricated document. He further submits that based on the inserted fabricated documents, the petitioner has also subsequently obtained information through RTI from the Registration Department in order to fortify their case, whereas all those documents were obtained based on fabricated document. The accused are land sharks who by taking advantage of absenti owners, used to indulge in creating fabricated documents and inserting them in the SRO office and thereby creating encumbrance and filing of collusive suits and thereby cause much inconvenience and loss to the original owners of the property. It is a case of tampering of official records which is a serious offence and thereby the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much required and he would seriously
Crl.O.P.No.27542 of 2024
object for grant of bail.
in the Offices of the Sub Registrars and thereby, creating encumberance over the
Crl.O.P.No.27542 of 2024
properties illegally and in the present case, prima facie appears that the petitioner along with his accomplices, had indulged in fabricating the documents in respect of the subject property by fraudulently entering into an agreement of sale with A1, who is not the original owner while one Mrs.Girija was the original owner and had inserted in the records of the SRO and tampered with records this Court founds it is not a fit case for grant of advance bail. Further, it is reported that the investigation is still pending and the petitioner is required for the purpose of custodial interrogation, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition for grant of anticipatory bail.
19.12.2024
rst
Crl.O.P.No.27542 of 2024
To
Crl.O.P.No.27542 of 2024
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA., J.
rst
Crl.O.P.No.27542 of 2024
19.12.2024
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in a case alleging document fraud and land grabbing.
Whether the petitioner requires custodial interrogation given the prima facie evidence of fraud.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M. Devendran
The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch I, Vepery, Chennai
A.D. Jagadish Chandira
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
