S. SATHYA SARAVANAN Vs. GUNASEKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the defacto complainant viz., S.Sathya Saravanan, represented through her power agent filed this petition praying to cancel the bail granted to the respondents 1 and 2 in Crl.M.P.Nos.3716, 3717 and 3718 of 2022 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Erode dtd. 13/12/2022 pertaining to Accused Nos.1 to 6 in Crime No. 10 of 2022 for the alleged offence under Sec. 120B, 418, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 109 of I.P.C. on the file of District Crime Branch, Erode.

(2.) The defacto complainant/petitioner herein is the daughter-inlaw of accused Gunasekaran and Krishnaveni, who are arrayed as A1 and A2 and she got married to their son Guhan on 8/9/2005 and thereafter she is now residing in New Zealand and she is working as Software Engineer. While so, at the instance of A1 Gunasekaran, she gave a power of attorney in his favour in the year of 2011 through a registered power of attorney and by using her money given as dowry of Rs.10.00 lakhs and remaining balance sum of Rs.10.00 lakhs belong to A2, through her power agent (A1), they purchased a land measuring 11 acres 18 cents through a registered sale deed dtd. 18/1/2022, in which, the defacto complainant and her motherin-law (A2) having equal shares in that property. However, due to a family dispute, she obtained a decree of divorce from A1's son Guhan on 14/9/2021 in the court of New Zealand. Previously, with regard to division of property, a suit was filed by the brother of A1 in O.S. No.72 of 2013 against this petitioner and her husband, her in-laws before IV Addl. District Judge, Erode at Bhavani. Since A1 Gunasekaran/father-in-law acting against the interest of defacto complainant and her children, she revoked the said Power of attorney on 24/2/2020 and the said revocation was duly intimated to A1 through e-mail on 24/2/2020 and also intimated the same through her father to the Sub-Registrar, Bhavani. On 1/4/2021 the defacto complainant, through e-mail also intimated such revocation to the IV Addl. District Judge, Bhavani. Thereafter, she executed a power of attorney in favour of her father on 16/7/2021. In the said circumstances, on suppressing the revocation of power of attorney granted to A1, he along with his wife A2 fraudulently created a registered partition deed allotting 10 acres 93 cents to his wife Krishnaveni (A2) and allotting meagre extent of 25 cents to the defacto complainant on the strength of a fraudulent life certificate. However, her father died on 12/2/2022, hence, she came to India to attend funeral. At that time, A6 Medical Officer has given a false life certificate as if she appeared before her on 23/2/2022, in fact, she has not put any signature in the life certificate nor she appeared before the medical officer. On colluding with the other attesting witnesses A3 to A5, A1 and A2 created a partition deed without her knowledge in order to grab the property worth about Rs.5.00 crores. Hence, she gave a complaint against them and the same was registered in Crime No.10 of 2022.

(3.) Thereafter, on knowing about the registration of F.I.R., the accused persons 1 to 5 approached the District Court seeking for anticipatory bail in Crl.M.P.Nos. 2880, 2881, 2882 of 2022 and she intervened by submitting her objections and accordingly, the same was dismissed on 22/11/2022. Though the earlier anticipatory bail petition was dismissed, immediately, within a period of three days, the second anticipatory bail petition was filed and the trial court also allowed the petition on 13/12/2022 and anticipatory bail was granted to them without assigning any reason nor there is no change of circumstances, which is totally unfair. Furthermore, after obtaining the anticipatory bail, the accused persons not cooperating for the investigation and so far, there was no progress in the investigation, and hence, on that ground itself, the anticipatory bail is liable to be cancelled. Moreover, after obtaining the anticipatory bail, the accused A1 also attempted to transfer the property in the name of A2 by manipulating the document. Therefore, nonconsideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as objections raised by the intervener before the trial judge, the anticipatory bail was granted in favour of accused concerned, which is totally against the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence, the said order is liable to be set aside.