Gunasekaran vs State

T.V. Thamilselvi, J

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 10.11.2022 for the alleged offence under Sections 420, 406, 294(b) and 506(i) r/w Sec.34 of I.P.C. in Crime No.32 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of prosecution is that the petitioner herein is alleged to have entered into sale agreement with the defacto complainant to sell the property, but later the defacto complainant found that he is not the owner of property. Accordingly, he refused to execute the sale deed. When he demanded to repay the amount, there was a dispute between them, thereby he filed a suit in O.S.No. 158 of 2022 seeking the prayer not to disturb and not to take any action with regard to the suit property and thereafter, the F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner.

The learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that already he has got proper permission from the legal heirs of Pattabiraman and he attempted to sell he property, the defacto complainant proposed to purchase the same, thereby a sale agreement was executed and subsequently, he refused to comply the terms of sale agreement and demanded to repay the amount. Thereafter, he has filed a suit and also gave a false complaint against the petitioner. He would submit that he has not at all committed any of offence as alleged by the respondent police and he has been falsely implicated in this case and he will abide by any condition imposed by this court. He would further submit that the investigation is almost completed and that the petitioner has been suffering incarceration for more than 35 days from 10.11.2022. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

The learned counsel for Intervenor raised an objection stating that the petitioner is not the real owner of property and hence, the defacto complainant requested to repay the advance amount, which was paid in the year of 2015 and all these days, the petitioner is withholding the amount of defacto complainant, wherein the advance amount along with interest comes around a sum of Rs.92 lakhs. According to the defacto complainant, only a sum of Rs.30 lakhs was paid and the remaining amount, the petitioner has to pay, but he failed to repay the amount.

Hence, he prayed to dismiss this Criminal Original Petition.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for respondent would submit that the investigation is in a preliminary stage and huge amount was involved in the crime. He would submit that the petitioner has cheated an amount of Rs.57 lakhs of innocent defacto complainant, being a lady and a senior citizen. He would also submit that the petitioner has neither got any power of attorney nor any sale agreement with the real owner at the time of making agreement with the defacto complainant. He would also submit that if he released on bail, he would tamper the witnesses and hamper the investigation and the investigation is almost completed. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

On seeing the facts, with regard to the sale, there was a dispute for the past three months and subsequently, this petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.158 of 2022 and the same was contested by the defacto complainant. It also revealed that a sum of Rs.30 lakhs was refunded by the petitioner. From the year of 2015 onwards, the land with regard to the plaint was in possession of petitioner and he failed to pay the amount.

Considering the above facts and circumstances, and also considering the fact that the investigation was almost completed and considering the nature of offence committed by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant interim bail to the petitioner for the period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order subject to the following conditions:

Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) to the credit of Crime No.32 of 2022 within a period of four weeks from the date of release, failing which, suitable order will be passed on 19.01.2023. Therefore, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial, Puducherry, and on further conditions that:

(a) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar Card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity;

(b) the petitioner shall report before the respondent police on every Wednesday at 10.30 a.m. for the period of four weeks ;

(c) on such deposit of amount, the defacto complainant is permitted to withdraw the deposit amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Only) on proper identification and acknowledgment.

(d) the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature;

(e) the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

(f) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

(g) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial 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 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];

(h) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

Post the matter for reporting compliance on 19.01.2023.