1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Twenty Second day of December Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.16854 of 2011 R.RAMALINGAM ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.4 Vs STATE REP. BY ITS THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH POLICE STATION, THOOTHUKUDI CR.NO. 52 OF 2011 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. A.D.GANESH MOORTHI Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN, Addl. Public Prosecutor (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner is arrayed as A4 and he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 29.11.2011 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 419, 468, 471, 420 and 120(b) I.P.C., in Crime No.52 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and seek bail. 2. Heard Mr.A.D.Ganesh Moorthi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.S.Duraipandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent State. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioner is ranked as A4 and he has been falsely implicated in this case and his name was not mentioned in the F.I.R. He would further submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he is incarceration from 29.11.2011 and he may be granted bail, he is ready to abide any condition likely to be imposed against him. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that the co-accused A1 to A3 are notorious persons and they have got more than 25 cases of similar nature and they used to change the persons for doing the crime of impersonation and the present petitioner A4 has acted as the owner of the property and had impersonated the true owner and thereby the petitioner has also jointly with other accused and committed the offence of impersonation. He would further submit in his argument that if for any reason, the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail there is likelihood of absconding and tampering of Court and therefore, he would request this Court that the bail plea of the petitioner may be dismissed, since the investigation is still pending. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5.Considering the submissions made by both sides, this Court could see that the co-accused A1 to A3 have got number of cases of similar nature to their credit and the petitioner is said to be a person, who impersonated the true owner of the property in this case. The impersonation of any persons is a serious one and if for any reason, the petitioner is granted bail there is a likelihood of absconding from the clutches of law. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 22/12/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH POLICE STATION, THOOTHUKUDI. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, PALAYAMKOTTAI. 3. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. A.D.GANESH MOORTHI Advocate SR.No.45203 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.16854 of 2011 Date :22/12/2011 RJ/26.12.11 2p/5c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/