ELEPHANT G. RAJENDRAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPREHENDING arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 307 and 420 IPC, petitioner has filed this petition under section 438 Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail.

(2.) PETITIONER has been arrayed as A1 in the complaint lodged against him and another by one R. Raghupathi.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner/A1 submitted that actually the friend of A1, viz., P.T.Perumal developed few layouts. One such layout developed by him was at Sastrambakkam Village. Absolutely, petitioner has no rule to play in the project and he never received any money or handled any money. Absolutely, no material was produced by the prosecution to show that a sum of Rs.24 lakhs has been paid neither to A1 nor to A2. Learned counsel, by inviting the attention of this court to various sale agreements entered with the land owners, and submitted that in all the sale agreements entered with the land owners, and submitted that in all the sale agreements, the de-facto complainant Raghupathy is also one of the parties. Therefore, the question of cheating the de-facto complainant does not arise in this case. Further, he brought to the knowledge of this Court to certain averments made in the complaint and submitted that those averments deal with the alleged conversation transpired between P.T.Perumal, Devaraj and A1. The de-facto complainant came into picture only at a later point of time. Therefore, the said averments found in the complaint would clearly show that the present complaint was filed only at the instigation of said P.T.Perumal. In this regard, the learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has filed a writ petition against the then Chairman of Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and on account of the conduct of P.T.Perumal in the said case, he terminated his relationship with him. Thus, the learned counsel submitted that he is a leading practising advocate and he will co-operate with the enquiry. Hence, there is no need of custodial interrogation in this case.