V.RAJASEKAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks bail in Crime No.509 of 2023, registered for the offence under Ss. 465, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC. The petitioner had been remanded to judicial custody on 2/11/2023.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is one among seven children of N.Venu. He apparently had sold the property, which is in question and which is situated at Pinji Village in Ranipet District in Survey No.3/9, New Survey No.3/9A to one M.G.Velu. They had thereafter sold the property to one Asathullah. This effectively meant that the property had moved away from the ownership of the family but the children apparently were not either satisfied with their share of consideration paid to them or did not approve of that particular sale by their father. They thereafter entered into a partition deed by including that particular also as one of the properties which could be partitioned and that property devolved on to A6, the brother of the petitioner herein. A6 then appointed the defacto complainant as Power of Attorney agent to deal with the property. The said Power of Attorney agent had paid consideration of value of the property to an extent of about Rs.22.00 lakhs. Thereafter, finding that the property had actually been conveyed and under the Power of Attorney, and she can never deal with the property, she had lodged the complaint which led to registration of FIR in the aforementioned provisions.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that to express bonafide, out of Rs.22.00 lakhs paid to the Power of Attorney around a sum of Rs.14.00 lakhs had been retuned back to the defacto complainant and a balance of Rs.7.00 lakhs is to be paid to her.