Madras High Court
Anu @ Sashikala vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 April, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:17.04.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
Crl.O.P.No.6497 of 2019
Anu @ Sashikala ...Petitioner.
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch-I, Team No.IV,
Vepery, Chennai.
2.S.Shajahan @ S.S.Chakravarthy,
3.Srinivasan Ramamoorthy,
4.Nelson,
5.Lalgudi N.Illayaraja,
6.Kanal Kannan @ Kannan Velpandian,
7.A.Shakthivel,
8.T.Selvaraj @ Selvam.
(Respondents 3 to 8 were impleaded as party
respondents vide order of this Court dated
17.04.2021 by MDIJ) ...Respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 439(ii) of
Cr.P.C., to cancel the bail in Crl.O.P.No.26652 of 2018 in Crime No.405 of
2018 passed by this Hon'ble Court dated 11.12.2018 and pass orders.
For Petitioner : Mr.L.Infant Dinesh
For R1 : Ms.Kritika Kamal
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
For R3 to R6 : Mr.Raj Thilak E.
For R7 and R8 : Mr.Abbul Saleem
ORDER
This criminal original petition has been filed to cancel the bail
granted by this Court to the 2nd respondent by an order dated 11.12.2018
passed in Crl.O.P.No.26652 of 2018.
2..The case of the prosecution is that the complainant is the
partner of M/s.Magic Rays, a film distributing firm. The 2nd respondent
produced a film named “Vaalu”and he entered into an agreement dated
29.05.2013 with the defacto complainant assigning the rights of the theatre
distribution and exploitation of the said movie in the territory of the State of
Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, Kerala and Karnataka for a period in perpetuity for
the agreed consideration of Rs.10,00,00,000/-. In this regard, a dispute arose
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
in respect of assigned rights of threatre release of the film. As such the
defacto complainant filed a suit against the petition in C.S.No.541 of 2015
before this Court for the relief of permanent injunction. In the said suit, they
amicably settled the issues and entered into a Copyright Assignment
Agreement dated 01.08.2015, and the said agreement form part and parcel of
the judgment and decree in C.S.No.541 of 2015. As per the said agreement,
the petitioner agreed to repay a sum of Rs.7,45,00,000/- by giving exclusive
theatre right of distribution, exhibition and exploitation of another movie
currently being produced by him in the name “Vettai Mannan” for the State
of Tamil Nadu, failing which the petitioner has to repay the said sum of
Rs.7,45,00,000/- with interest. Even after completion of three years from
the year 2015, the petitioner did not even commence the production of the
film named “Vettaimannan”. Therefore, he cheated the defacto complainant
to the tune of Rs.7,45,00,000/-. When questioned the same, the petitioner
threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, the complaint.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner/defacto complainant
would submit that this Court had granted anticipatory bail to the accused/R2
on the ground that he completed 80% of the movie by relying upon the
materials and other documents placed before the Court. He further
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
submitted that those documents and materials are forged one and infact he
has not completed 80% of the movie and hence he seeks for cancellation of
the anticipatory bail granted to the 2nd respondent.
4.The learned counsel for the second respondent would submit
that already this Court considered the issues and granted anticipatory bail on
certain conditions. It cannot be cancelled unless the petitioner file any
materials to prove that the materials placed before the court is a forged one
and it has a separate cause of action and it should be worked out in the
manner known to law. Therefore, he seeks for dismissal of this petition.
5.The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the 1st
respondent Police submitted that the petitioner has complied with the
conditions.
6. The order passed by this Court on 11.12.2018 in Crl. O.P.
No.26652/18 reveals that while granting anticipatory bail, while certain
conditions were imposed by this Court, the Court had also recorded a
finding that on the materials placed before it, it is seen that 80% of the
movie had been completed and, therefore, in that backdrop, keeping in mind
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
the agreement entered into between the defacto complainant and the 2nd
respondent/accused, anticipatory bail was granted to the 2nd
respondent/accused. However, now the present petition has been filed
averring change of circumstance, in that the movie had not at all commenced
and, therefore, the bail granted to the 2nd respondent should be cancelled.
7. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent,
though such a ground has been raised by the petitioner, however, no
materials has been placed before this Court to sustain the said ground. It is
the stand of the petitioner that forged documents have been placed to satisfy
the Court for obtaining bail. However, the petition is bereft of particulars as
to how the said documents are alleged to be forged and the materials which
point to the said documents being forged documents. Mere averment cannot
partake the character of proof and more so when the petitioner seeks to
cancel the bail granted to the 2nd respondent, this Court is ordained with the
task of satisfying itself that a fraudulent act had been perpetrated on this
Court to obtain bail.
8. Further, when there has been a finding rendered by this Court, it is
the duty of the petitioner to satisfy this Court that the said finding was on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
the basis of documents, which are untrue. Mere assertion by the petitioner
that documents are forged on the basis of which bail has been granted would
not be suffice to cancel the bail granted to the 2nd respondent. There should
be deliberate non-compliance of the conditions stipulated and/or fraudulent
act perpetrated before this Court for cancellation of bail and in the above
circumstances, there being no deliberate non-compliance with the order
passed by this Court, nor any material to show that fraud has been
perpetrated on this Court, the prayer of the petitioner herein for cancellation
of bail does not merit acceptance.
9. It is to be pointed out at this juncture that it has been the ratio laid
down in a catena of decisions that unless and until substantive materials are
placed to show that the bail obtained was through fraudulent means and that
the conditions imposed by the court have not been complied with, on mere
ipse dixit, the Courts shall not invoke its power to cancel the bail. The
conditions for cancellation of bail are more stringent than the conditions for
grant of bail, as has been laid down by the courts and in the present case, on
mere assertions, the petitioner seeks to have the bail granted to the petitioner
cancelled without placing the requisite materials to substantiate his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
submissions. Such being the case, this Court is not inclined to grant the
prayer as sought for by the petitioner.
10. For the reasons aforesaid, this application for cancellation of bail
is liable to be dismissed and, accordingly, the same is dismissed.
17.04.2021
rm
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch-I, Team No.IV,
Vepery, Chennai.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
M.DHANDAPANI, J.,
rm
Crl.O.P.No.6497 of 2019
17.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
