BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Twenty Third day of December Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.16655 of 2011 JULIAN PRAKASH : PETITIONER/ACCUSED-1 Vs. THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, MADURAI, MADURAI DISTRICT. CRIME NO.82/2011 : RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. M.SARAVANAN Advocate For Respondent : Mr. K.S.DURAI PANDIAN Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 387, 406, 420, 467, 468, 506(ii) and 120(b) of IPC, in Crime No.82 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police, the petitioner has approached this Court for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Heard Mr.M.Saravanan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.S.Duraipandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioner is ranked as A1. The complaint given by the defacto complainant would go to show that the petitioner had purchased the property from A1 clandestinely knowing full well that the property belonging to the defacto complainant. He would further submit that the defacto complainant claims that the property belong to her and she had executed the sale deed nominally when the accused Nos.2 and 3 had demanded for an execution of sale deed for the loan amount advanced to her in the year 1996 to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- and accordingly, the said property was sold to A2 when the principles made with the interest to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- handed over to the second accused. The second accused and rowdy elements have threatened the defacto complainant and now the present persons has purchased the property in order to defeat the rights of the defacto complainant. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. He would further submit in his argument that the case of the defacto complainant is not true and if really the case of the defacto complainant is true, she would given a complaint in the year 1996 when the sale has been obtained by the petitioner from the second accused in the year 2006 and there was no complaint at the time of purchasing of the said property. He would further submit that the Civil suit is pending as filed by the defacto complainant in O.S.No.24 of 2006, on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Madurai and the complaint given by the defacto complainant is after thought and he is having permanent residence and permanent root in the society and hence, he may be granted anticipatory bail. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that the petitioner has purchased the property knowing full well that there was an encumbrance to the effect that the defacto complainant has got of right to get the re-conveyance under the said property and he had colluded with second accused in order to defeat the rights of the defacto complainant in the property and to defraud to her. He would also submit that the investigation is pending and the petitioner has no prima facie case, if for any reason, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, stringent condition may be imposed for his secured presence and for the purpose of interrogation. 6. Considering the submissions made by both sides, this Court could see that the property in Survey No.316/3 in Kannanendal Village, Madurai North Taluk is the subject matter and the property was admittedly sold by the defacto complainant in the year 1996 and there was no written agreement re-conveyance in between the parties, since the said payment of Rs.2,00,000/- was only towards advancement of loan. Further the property was said to have been conveyed by the second accused in favour of the petitioner in the year 2006 and the defacto complainant had also filed a suit in O.S.No.24 of 2006 before the learned Principal Sub Judge, Madurai and the case is also pending. 7. According to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said promise regarding the property has been defeated after the compromise agreement has been reached in between the petitioner and the defacto complainant on payment of Rs.1,60,000/-. In the said circumstances, the claim of the defacto complainant and the settlement which has been effected in between the petitioner and the defacto complainant have to be investigated and the criminality if any attached could be ascertained only at the end of the investigation. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I could see a prima facie for the grant of anticipatory bail, this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai and on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m for a period of two weeks. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 9. The petitioner shall appear before the Magistrate concerned within a period of 15 days, failing which, the anticipatory bail granted shall stand automatically cancelled. sd/- 23/12/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.1, MADURAI. 2. -DO- THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI DISTRICT. 3. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. 4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, MADURAI, MADURAI DISTRICT. +1 CC to M/S. M.SARAVANAN Advocate SR.No.45757 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.16655 of 2011 Date :23/12/2011 NSV/27.12.11/3P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/