MADURAI: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Wednesday dismissed the bail petitions of sub-registrar Justin Manikandan Subramanian and Jayaprakash, both accused in the alleged fraudulent registration of a Rs 100-crore property belonging to the Dhandayuthapani Swamigal Mutt in Palani.
Categorically stating that granting bail to the petitioners at this stage would hamper the investigation, Justice K Rajasekar accepted the submissions made by the prosecution while dismissing the petitions.
The Court noted that the prosecution had submitted that there was frequent telephonic communication between the petitioners — sub-registrar Manikandan, who registered the document, and Jayaprakash — before and during the registration of the document.
“The Call Detail Record particulars revealed repeated phone calls between them. Further, the CCTV footage collected from Joint-I Sub Registrar Office, Palani, has revealed material circumstances, which establishes the interaction of the petitioners on July 3, the date on which the disputed document was re-presented and kept pending by the then Sub Registrar, Balasundar and on joining of Manikandan on July 6, the document was registered in Document No.1446/2026,” the Judge referred this prosecution submission while dismissing their bail petitions
The Judge referred to this submission of the prosecution while dismissing the bail petitions.
The Court further stated that despite the then sub-registrar Balasundar had specifically recorded in the minutes book after completing the initial registration process, the Writ Appeal had been filed by the temple authorities challenging the order directing to register the document. “However, without considering these minutes and remarks recorded by Balasundar, the accused Manikandan straightaway completed the registration process by assigning the document number. This clearly reveals that he did not act bona fide but intentionally acted to benefit the other accused,” the Court observed.
The prosecution further submitted that there was a close association between the petitioners and Anwardeen, the fifth accused in the case. According to the prosecution, Anwardeen had been actively involved in fabricating records and had taken several steps to grab the property since 1998.
The prosecution further informed the Court that Anwardeen, who was arrested by the CB-CID, had disclosed various facts regarding the manner in which the sale deed came to be registered and the steps allegedly taken by the accused to compel the Registration Department to complete the registration.
In his anticipatory bail petition, Justin Manikandan contended that the entire registration process had already been completed by the previous sub-registrar and that his role was limited to assigning the registration number after assuming charge. He further contended that he had merely complied with an earlier High Court direction to register the sale deed and had no role in the alleged conspiracy. Based on these submissions, the High Court had granted him conditional anticipatory bail on July 27.
Jayaprakash had also filed an anticipatory bail petition in connection with the case. As both petitions involved the same crime, the Court heard them together and dismissed them.