1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to cancel the bail granted to the 1st respondent in Crl.M.P.No.30824 of 2023 on the file of Principal Sessions Court, Chennai.

2. The petitioner was subsequently cheated by other accused by selling the property belonging to the defacto complainant. Believing their words, he purchased the property for a sum of Rs.67,80,000/- for which he availed a loan from Axis Bank, amounting to Rs.45,77,414/- and paid the said consideration to the alleged vendor, who also ranked as A3. Later, he came to know that through impersonation and fabrication of records, the property was sold to him. Thereafter, the complaint was lodged by the original owner. Based on that, the District Registrar, South Chennai, conducted an enquiry and cancelled all the fabricated documents including sale deeds through which he purchased the property. Now, he has been paying EMIs for the loan borrowed by him. Hence, he prays to cancel the bail granted to the 1st respondent, who also assisted in the fabrication of records, by relying the ratio laid down in (2023) 8 Supreme Court Cases 181: 2023 SCC Online SC 785, Pratibha Manchanda and another vs. State of Haryana and another, in which it was stated as follows:

“29.Land Scams in India have been a persistent issue, involving fraudulent practices and illegal activities related to land acquisition, ownership and transactions. Scammers often create fake land titles, forge sale deeds, or manipulate land records to show false ownership or an encumbrance-free status. Organised criminal networks often plan and execute these intricate scams, exploiting vulnerable individuals and communities, and resorting to intimidation or threats to force them to vacate their properties. These land scams not only result in financial losses for individuals and investors but also disrupt development projects, erode public trust, and hinder Socio-economic progress.

30. While, we do not wish to comment further on this issue, we believe it is necessary to foil any trace of organised crime perpetrated by land mafia, through an unimpaired and unobstructed investigation.

31. It is inarguable that the cancellation of bail should be done only for substantial and compelling reasons, however, setting aside an erroneous bail order is altogether different from cancelling bail. This Court does not intend to interfere with the judicial discretion exercised by the High Court in granting bail to an accused as a standard practice. However, it is essential to ensure that all the material facts are brought on record and thereafter only the discretionary jurisdiction is exercised in accordance with the fundamental principles of anticipatory bail laid down in various decisions over time by this Court.

32. It is immaterial that the genuineness of the 1996 GPA is already Sub judice before the Civil Court in the civil suits pending between the parties. The appellants, owing to their age and residential status, cannot be expected to await indefinitely for the outcome of these civil proceedings. Regardless, the pendency of these cases does not estop the issues of forgery and fabrication being considered in the course of criminal investigation. The facts of the case speak for themselves and an element of criminality cannot be ruled out at this stage. Whether or not the alleged offences were committed by respondent 2 and his co-accused in active collusion with each other can be effectively determined by a free, fair, unhampered and dispassionate investigation. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, custodial interrogation of not only respondent 2 but all other suspects is, therefore, imperative to unearth the truth. Joining the investigation with a protective umbrella provided by pre-arrest bail will render the exercise of eliciting the truth ineffective in such like case. We are, as mentioned, also sceptical, suspicious and incredulous about the verification process of the 1996 GPA carried out by the Sub-Registrar, Kalkaji, New Delhi. Hence, the conduct of the officials of Sub-Registrar Office, Kalkaji, New Delhi is also required to be examined to take the investigation to its logical conclusion.”

3. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that he has not actively participated in the fabrication of the records as well as impersonation, he was only assisted by A3 and received a commission of Rs.3 lakhs, which was also deposited in Crime No.253 of 2022, as per the direction given by the Sessions Court while granting bail in Crl.M.P.No.30824 of 2023, except for receiving the broker commissioner, he has not participated in any fabrication of the records and has also regularly complied the conditions imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chennai and has appeared before the investigation agency for more than 20 times. Therefore, he raised objection to cancel the bail.

4. To support his contention, he relies on the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of SLP(Crl.) Nos.786 & 2032 of 2024, Himanshu Sharma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, in which it was stated as follows:

“12. Law is well settled by a catena of judgements rendered by this Court that the considerations for grant of bail and cancellation thereof are entirely different. Bail granted to an accused can only be cancelled if the Court is satisfied that after being released on bail, (a) the accused has misused the liberty granted to him; (b) flouted the conditions of bail order; © that the bail was granted in ignorance of statutory provisions restricting the powers of the Court to grant bail; (d) or that the bail was procured by misrepresentation or fraud. In the present case, none of these situations existed.” After availing bail, he has not disobeyed any of the conditions imposed by this Court. Therefore, the relief claimed by the petitioner as such is not maintainable."

5. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by misleading the Court, he obtained the anticipatory bail order. Further, he has not been interrogated by the police, since he obtained an anticipatory bail in respect of fabrication of the documents. The petitioner ought to have been interrogated but due to the anticipatory bail order, he was not, including custodial interrogation.

6. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that he has already complied with the conditions, so there is no necessity for custodial interrogation, hence he raised an objection.

7. On considering both sides' counsels submissions, as per the confession of A3, who is the main culprit who made a plan regarding the fabrication of the records and impersonation, he along with A1 & A2 fabricated the documents and created a forged documents for 4 flats, out of which one fraudulent sale was made to the petitioner, who spent more than Rs.60 lakhs. For this petitioner, R1 also actively participated in fabrication of the records. However, he has not been arrested, only obtaining anticipatory bail by depositing the amount, and he was not subject to interrogation.

8. According to the petitioner, he is the person, who was the mater mind behind all the fabrication of the documents, due to which the petitioner become victims since the sale deed was cancelled, but he was still made to pay the EMI of the loan availed from Axis bank.

9. While availing bail, this fact has not been discussed by the learned trial Judge. Due to lack of particulars, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that his role is only assisting A3. But the fact reveals that he is master mind of the fabrication of the records. On seeing the conduct of the petitioner this Court is inclined to allow this petition and cancel the bail, because he is the main person behind the fabrication of the records.

10. The order passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.30824 of 2023, dated 01.12.2023 stands cancelled.

11. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.