SURESH Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Ss. 417, 419, 420, 463, 465, 468, 471, 506(i) and 120(B) IPC in Crime No.15 of 2023, seek anticipatory bail.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant was looking for a plot for constructing a house. The petitioners herein approached him and intoduced one Muthulaxshmi and told that she is a power agent of one Arivumani, W/o.Gandhimathi Nathan. On 16/10/2020, the defacto complainant purchased the land and paid a sum of Rs.85,00,000.00 as a sale consideration. Thereafter, the defacto complainant came to know that the said Muthulaxshmi is not a power agent of Arivumani and they sold the property by creating fabricated documents. Hence the case.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the petitioners only introduced the said Muthulaxshmi to the defacto complainant and they have not created any documents. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail.