DEVENDRA GUPTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition in Cri. O. P. No. 10702 of 2009 was filed by the accused/petitioners in Cri. O. P. No. 14278 of 2008 seeking anticipatory bail in respect of a case registered against them on the file of the CCB, Chennai, with the allegation that the petitioners, who are husband and wife, received a sum of Rs. 1 crore from the de facto complainant/brother of the first petitioner and. along with the contribution made by their mother, purchased a property measuring 7 grounds in Egmore, Chennai. for Rs. 3.45 crores and, after such purchase, the property was clandestinely settled in the name of the first petitioner's wife i.e., 2nd petitioner, who in turn sold it to a third party for Rs. 20 crores and the due share of the de facto complainant was not given; thereby, he was cheated. This Court, by order dated 23-6-2009, granted anticipatory bail by imposing certain conditions including the one for deposit of title deeds of property worth Rs. 25 lakhs by each of the accused, standing either in their respective names or in the name of third parties. Two week time was granted for execution of bond and production of documents. Under such circumstances, M. R No. 1 of 2009 in Cri. O. P. No. 10702 of 2009 has been filed on 15-7-2009, seeking for modification of the condition pertaining to deposit of title deeds and the learned counsel, expressing inability on the part of the petitioners to furnish title deeds of property worth Rs. 25 lakhs, submits that the 2nd petitioner is a cancer patient and that the condition in question being onerous, the same should not have been imposed having regard to the facts and circumstances involved.

(2.) Per contra, learned Government Advocate, by pointing out that investigation in the case that was registered on 19-6-2009 as Crime No. 261 of 2009 is still pending, submits that, because of the relief granted in favour of the petitioners, the investigation could not proceed, for, they are not co-operative throughout and further, after obtaining an order in their favour, in parallel, the petitioners have filed Cri. O. P. No. 14278 of 2009 to quash the FIR pertaining to Cr. No. 261 of 2009, and while admitting the petition, interim stay was ordered, therefore, the respondent police are not in a position to proceed further with the investigation.

(3.) The de facto complainant/3rd respondent in Cri. O. P. No. 14278 of 2009 has preferred M. P. No. 3 of 2009 in Cri. O. P. No. 10702 of 2009 for cancellation of the relief of anticipatory bail granted in favour of the accused and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for him submits that the present petition is nothing but a mode devised by the accused to protract the proceedings and to see that the complaint given to the respondent police is somehow closed to the favour of the accused. He points out that a petition in Cri. O. P. No. 9782 of 2009 was filed and this Court, on being satisfied that a cognizable offence has been made out against the accused, issued a positive direction to the respondent police to register a case and investigate into the same. Only under such circumstances, the complaint was taken on file against the accused and considering their plea for anticipatory bail, relief was granted in Cri. O. P. No. 10702 of 2009 by imposing certain conditions. After gelling favourable orders from this Court, the petitioners have moved the application for modification only to gain some more time for non-compliance of the conditions and equally to cripple the investigation which course, if allowed, would greatly prejudice the interests of the de facto complainant. According to him, only with such intention, alternatively, they have come up with the petition in Cri.O. P. No. 14278 of 2009 to quash the proceedings pertaining to Cr. No. 261 of 2009; therefore, this is a fit case for cancellation of the relief of anticipatory bail granted in favour of the accused/petitioners.