V.Kumar vs State

A.D.Jagadish Chandira, J

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 18.08.2022, for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 465, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC, in Crime No.102 of 2022, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of the prosecution is that the accused by impersonation and fabrication of documents, sold the land belonging to one Ganesh Kumar, who is a NRI and cheated the defacto complainant. Hence the complaint.

Mr.J.Selvarajan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that this is the second bail application before this Court. He would further submit that the petitioner is an innocent person. He would further submit that believing the transactions to be true, the petitioner had signed as a witness and other than signing as a witness to the documents, he does not know anything about the transaction. He would also submit that after the transaction, an amount of Rs.13,00,000/- had been transferred to the account of the petitioner by way of RTGS. He would further submit that this money was received in respect of some other transaction, however, now the petitioner is ready and willing to repay the amount of Rs.13,00,000/- to the victim. He would also submit that the petitioner can be able to repay the amount only if he is granted bail. He would also state that the petitioner undertakes that he is prepared to deposit a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- within four weeks from release on bail and the balance amount of Rs.6,00,000/- within another four weeks to the credit of crime number. The learned counsel further submit that the petitioner has no objection in the amount being released in favour of the victim (A1 & A2), Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

Mr.C.E.Pratap, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that the land belongs to one Ganesh Kumar, who is living in abroad. He would also submit that the accused by fabrication and impersonation have sold the property to Safina and K.H.Deen Mohamed and initially they were added as A1 and A2 and during the course of investigation, it came to light that A1 and A2 are innocent purchasers and they have purchased the property after paying money to the other accused. He would also submit that apart from cheating the original owner, the accused have also cheated A1 and A2 in the transaction and they have paid the money through Demand Draft as well as transferring money through RTGS and though, they were added as A1 and A2, finding that they have paid money through legal sources, and they are innocent the respondent are taking steps to delete them from the array of accused.

He would further state that the petitioner is the main accused in this case and he has a pivotal role for arranging impersonators and also arranging account holder of one Ganesh Kumar and in the transaction, this petitioner has received a sum of Rs.13 lakhs. He would also state that the petitioner is a habitual offender against whom one previous case of similar nature is pending in Crime No.75 of 2021 on the file of the CCB, Chennai. Therefore, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

Mr.L.Infant Dinesh, learned counsel appearing for the intervenor would submit that Safina and K.H.Deen Mohamed, who are arrayed as A1 and A2 in this case, are innocent purchasers of the property and are the real victims. They have spent their hard earned money for several years for purchase of property and the entire money have been paid through legal sources. He would also submit that the case of the fraud and cheating committed by the other accused, they have been unnecessarily arrayed as accused and the respondent/police later finding that they are innocent purchasers have assured that they will be deleted from the array of accused and that they will treated as witnesses in this case. He would further state that A1 and A2 have lost their life time savings of Rs.52 lakhs in the transaction.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and perused the materials available on record.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned counsel that the petitioner, who is in custody from 18.08.2022 is volunteered to repay a sum of Rs.13 lakhs to the credit of the Crime No.102 of 2022, this Court is inclined to grant interim bail to the petitioner for a period of four weeks with certain conditions.

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on interim bail till 02.12.2022 on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- ( Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive Trial of Land Grabbing Cases-II, Egmore, at Allikulam, and on further conditions that:

[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;

[b] the petitioner, within four weeks from the date of coming out of bail, shall pay a sum of Rs.7 lakhs either by way of Demand Draft/direct jointly to A1 and A2 (Safina and K.H.Deen Mohamed)/or deposit the same to the credit of Crime No.102 of 2022 and the learned Magistrate shall disburse the amount to A1 and A2 (Safina and K.H.Deen Mohamed) and after a further period of four weeks, the petitioner shall pay a balance amount of Rs.6 lakhs either by way of Demand Draft/direct jointly to A1 and A2 (Safina and K.H.Deen Mohamed)/or deposit the same to the credit of Crime No.102 of 2022 and the learned Magistrate shall disburse the amount to A1 and A2 (Safina and K.H.Deen Mohamed).

[c] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police, daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[e] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

[f] 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 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];

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

List the matter on 02.12.2022.