I.Glaskasden Grace & Ors vs Inspector Of Police & Anr

3. A complaint was filed by one B. Nagalakshmi W/o Balagovindarajulu, Complainant - Respondent No. 2 contending inter alia that she approached one M. Mani, a land broker, for the purchase of house sites bearing Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12 in Sasi West Extension, Vilakrichi Village, Sern Nagar, Coimbatore. Mani informed that K. Sakthivel is the owner of site No. 12, and other site owners reside at Tiruppur and Selvapuram. Encumbrance Certificate issued by the Sub- Registrar and sale deed of 4 sites were shown, which reflected that the land were in the name of appellants. K. Sakthivel made assurance to the complainant that he will arrange for the sale of the four sites to her by the site owners by making them to execute a sale deed in her favour. The total sale amount for the four sites was fixed at Rs. 62,62,000/-. As alleged when the complainant came forward to tender white money for the entire amount, the accused Sakthivel asked her to tender white money only for Rs. 7,72,700/- and the rest in black, and represented that he would execute the sale deed in her favour only then. Accordingly, she had parted a sum of Rs. 7,72,700/- through four demand drafts and cash of Rs. 54,89,300/- to the accused, on the day of registration and got the Page 2 of 9 sale deed executed in her favour on 15.05.2007. Subsequently, on 03.06.2007 when the respondent No. 2 attempted to put up a boundary around the land, she came to know that the said four sites originally belonged to some other person.

4. It further transpires that accused/appellants conspired and forged the encumbrance certificate and impersonated themselves as original owners of the house sites, prepared a false sale deed and registered the same in favour of complainant and cheated the complainant to the tune of Rs. 62,62,000/-.

5. On receipt of the aforesaid complaint, a case was registered treating the said complaint as the First Information Report.

14. It is disclosed that the said property originally belonged to some other person. The allegations made are serious as it is alleged that accused/appellants conspired and forged the encumbrance certificate and impersonated themselves as original owners of the house sites and cheated the respondent No. 2 (complainant) to the tune of Rs. 62,62,000/- by preparing a false sale deed and getting it registered in favour of Respondent No. 2.

17. It is not disclosed from the record that the High Court considered the entire facts of the case in proper perspective and proceeded to dispose of the prayer for anticipatory bail oblivious of the facts of the case and contrary to correct legal position with regard to law relating to grant of anticipatory bail. The High Court should have considered the entire facts of the case including the gravity of the offence alleged and in the light thereof should have considered the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. In that view of the matter, we feel that the entire order passed by the High Court is required to be set aside and the matter to be reconsidered in accordance with law and in terms of observations made herein. Page 8 of 9

18. We accordingly, set aside the impugned order and remit back the matter to the High Court to consider the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants afresh in accordance with law taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of the offence alleged and analysing the prayer of the appellants whether to grant or not to grant the prayer for anticipatory bail. The High Court shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law, giving reasons for its decision, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of the communication of this order.

19. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

March 3, 2009 Page 9 of 9