Allowed

K.Uma v. the State of Tamilnadu Rep. by

Madras HC15 Mar 2024CRL OP/4821/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner in custody since 20.12.2023 for forgery and tampering of Sub Registrar Office records to help a land mafia sought bail. Noting two co-accused had been granted bail and progress in investigation, the court allowed bail with conditions including daily reporting and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on executing a Rs.10,000 bond with two like sureties to the satisfaction of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, with conditions including daily police reporting.

K.Uma Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep. by — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.4821 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 15.03.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.4821 of 2024

K.Uma

...Petitioner

Vs.

State represented by The Inspector of Police, CBCID, OCU-II, Chennai. Crime No.6 of 2023

¶11

...Respondent

¶12

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.6 of 2023 on the file of the respondent Police.

¶13

For petitioner : Mr.S.N.Subramani

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.L.Baskaran Government Advocate (crl.side)

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The petitioner who was remanded to judicial custody on

¶17

20.12.2023 for the offences registered by the respondent Police under

¶18

Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 of IPC, in Crime No.6 of 2023 seeks bail.

¶19

1/5

¶20

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

¶21

Crl.O.P.No.4821 of 2024

¶22

2.The defacto complainant is a Inspector General of Registration, Chennai. He had lodged a complaint that the accused and the private staff who had been working in Joint-II, Sub Registrar Office, Saidapet with the help of the other accused had tampered with records in order to help the land maffia. It had been stated that there has been tampering of the documents which had been registered.

¶23

3.The case of the prosecution is that the patta had been issued by the Zonal Deputy Tashildar, Alandur with respect to the property at St. Thomas Mount. It is further stated that the forged documents were used in the place of original documents at various stages in the office of the Sub Registrar to obtain Encumbrance Certificate. It was manually supplied by A2 and A4 who were in-charge of the Sub Registrar Office, Joint-II, Saidapet.

¶24

4.It is stated that A1 had filed anticipatory bail application before the Principal Sessions Court and the same was dismissed on 27.02.2024.

¶25

5.It had been stated that the Government had now taken control of the said property. A2 and A3 had been granted bail.

¶26

2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

Crl.O.P.No.4821 of 2024

¶28

6.Taking all these factors into consideration and also of the fact that two of the co-accused had been granted bail and there is progress in investigation, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

¶29

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet and on further conditions that :-

¶30

[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.

¶31

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police, everyday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.

¶32

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

¶33

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

¶34

[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the

¶35

3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

Crl.O.P.No.4821 of 2024

¶37

petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].

¶38

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

15.03.2024

vkr

1.The XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet.

¶43

The Central Prison, Puzhal.

¶44

The Inspector of Police, CBCID, OCU-II, Chennai.

¶45

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶46

4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶47

Crl.O.P.No.4821 of 2024

¶48

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN. J.

¶49

vkr

¶50

Crl.O.P.No.4821 of 2024

¶51

15.03.2024

¶52

5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

K.Uma v. the State of Tamilnadu Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Uma v. the State of Tamilnadu Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj @ Raju @ Mandaraj Vs Inspector of Police

M.K.Sibu @ Shihab Vs State Rep by

Deepan Vs the State Represented by

S.Sathishkumar Vs State Rep.by

Madhavi Vs State Rep.by

Prakash Vs State Rep by