K.SAKTHIVEL v. STATE REP BY:: THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CITY CRIME BRANCH, MADURAI CITYCR.NO. 57/2011

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT( Criminal Jurisdiction )Thursday, the Twenty Fifth day of August Two Thousand ElevenPRESENTThe Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALACRL OP(MD) No.10367 of 2011K.SAKTHIVEL ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED 3 VsSTATE REP BY:: THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CITY CRIME BRANCH, MADURAI CITYCR.NO. 57/2011 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANTFor Petitioner : M/S. A.ANANTHAPADMABAN AdvocateFor Respondent : MR. A. RAMAR, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-The petitioner is arrayed as A3 and he was arrested on24.07.2011 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 406, 420,448, 387, 506(i) and 120(b) I.P.C. in Crime No.57 of 2011 on the fileof the respondent police and hence, seeks bail.2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner wouldsubmit that the petitioner is working as Engineer in AgriculturalDepartment and he is nothing to do with the commission of offence. Hewould further submit that the alleged occurrence has been taken placebetween 2008 and 2011 and the complaint has been given only on23.07.2011 and the petitioner was arrested on 24.07.2011 and remandedto judicial custody. He would further submit that the property isbelonging to A1 and the sister's daughter of the petitioner hasentered into a sale agreement with the lawful owner of the propertyi.e. A1 and Rs.13 lakhs has been paid as advance in the month of June2010. He would further submit that the owner is residing at Ethiopiaand he executed a power of attorney on 22.04.2009 in favour of oneJeganathan, who is the defacto complainant and the same was cancelledon 29.04.2009 and on the date itself, the defacto complainant hasexecuted the sale deed in favour of his wife. He would further submitthat A1 has entered into a sale agreement with one Packialakshmi andhe received a sum of Rs.13 lakhs as advance and on payment of theamount, he handed over the possession to the said Packialakshmi. Hewould further submit that the allegations made in the F.I.R. is thatone person had met the defacto complainant and introduced himself ashe is Sakthivel and he has intimated that Shyamsundar/A1 was in hiscustody and except this averment, no allegation made against A3, thepresent petitioner herein and the investigation is considerably overand hence, he prayed for the enlargement on bail. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that theproperties are owned by A1/Shaymsundar and he executed a power ofattorney in favour of the defacto complainant, in turn, he sold thesame in favour of his wife and now they are in possession andenjoyment of the same. He would further submit that A2 intended tograb the property with the aid of A3 and Packialakshmi and hence, hecreated such sale agreement and the investigation is in earlier stageand hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the application.4.Considering the submissions made on either side,admittedly, the case has been registered against 4 named persons andsome unnamed persons. The complaint has been given by one Jagadeesan.This petitioner is shown as A3. Perusal of the complaint, it wasstated that the property is originally belonging to A1/Shyamsundar,who is none other that the cousin of the defacto complainant and hewas holding a firm in the name of Satha Sai Farms in Uganda and he ishaving Sathya Sai Farms (E) Pvt. Ltd., Company in Ethiopia . Since hesuffers some losses, he demanded loan and borrowed Rs. 5 lakhs in themonth of April 2008. Since no one is willing to purchase theproperty, because it was situated in 'Muttu Chandhu', his wife iswilling to purchase the same. When he made arrangement, he came toknow that the power of attorney has been cancelled. When he was aboutto gave a complaint, then, he executed another power of attorney dated22.04.2009, in pursuance of the same, he sold the same to his wife forRs.21 lakhs. totally, he has paid Rs.72,00,000/- with interest atthe rate of 18%, which amounts to Rs.81,79,500/-. Hence, he thebalance amount to be payable to the defacto complainant isRs.60,79,500/-. He further came to know that he was not dischargedthe housing loan to the tune of Rs.8 lakhs and hence, he gave acomplaint dated 19.09.2009, which was pending.5.There is series of complaints between A1 and the defactocomplainant. The present complaint has been given on 23.07.2011. Inthat, it was specifically mentioned that in the month of June 2010,when he gone to K.K.Nagar house along with his friend to meetA1/Shyamsundar, but, he was not there and at that time, two personswere chatting in front of the house and one of them introduced himselfthat he is Purushothaman, Advocate and when he made enquiry aboutA1/Shyamsundar, he would state that Shyamsundar was in the custody ofone Sakthivel. He would further state that one week later, 5 personswere came to the office at Ramapuram, Kovai and one of them introducedhimself that he is Sakthivel and Shyansundar was in his custody andShyamsundar handed over the K.K.Nagar house to him. He demanded thedefacto complainant to execute the sale deed after receipt of Rs.20lakhs. 6.While perusing the averments, the defacto complainantstated that the person claiming him as Sakthivel and threatened him asShyamsundar was in his custody. Except this averment, nothing againstthis petitioner. 7.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case andconsidering the fact that the petitioner was arrested on 24.07.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and he is in custody for more than 30 days and the investigation isconsiderably over and all the facts are borne by records, I aminclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.8. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released onbail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees TenThousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to thesatisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai, and onfurther condition that the petitioner shall report before the Courtconcerned daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. sd/- 25/08/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)TO1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, MADURAI2 DO THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI3 THE ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTORMADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT MADURAI4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICECITY CRIME BRANCH, MADURAI CITY5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL PRISON, MADURAI1. CC to M/S. A.ANANTHAPADMABAN Advocate SR.No.28965:DM::2011:AUGUST:25:: ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.10367 of 2011 Date :25/08/20113C::7C::