BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Second day of December Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.15078 of 2011 1.S.P.MURUGESAN 2. M.GIRI RAJA ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN Vs INSPECTOR OF POLICE COURTALLAM POLICE STATION, IN CR.NO. NOT KNOWN OF 2011, TIRUNELVELI DIST ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. S.KARTHIK Advocate For Respondent : K.S.DURAIPANDIAN, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under sectiosn 420, 506(ii) of IPC. They have approached this Court for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Heard Mr.S.Karthik, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.K.S.Duraipandian learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the state. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit in his argument that the complainant has been falsely given by the defacto complainant against the petitioners for the alleged refusal to register the sale deed and have threatened to kill the defacto complainant. He would further submit in his argument that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not indulged in such offences. He would also submit that the petitioners are having permanent residence and root in the society and therefore he would request for the grant of anticipatory bail. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that on the complaint given by the defacto complainant is under petition enquiry stage and it is not registered. He would further submit in his argument that if for any reason, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners suitable conditions may be passed for the secured presence of the petitioners. 5. Considering the submissions made on both sides, the allegations made in the complaint are under the petition enquiry stage and they seem to be a civil dispute pending between the parties. If there is any criminality found, the petition will be registered and the investigation will be commenced. Therefore I could see prima facie case for the grant of anticipatory bail. 6. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to all the petitioners of course, subject to certain stringent conditions. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. Accordingly the petitioners are directed to be released on bail, in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the Judicial Magistrate concerned on executing a separate 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, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District and on further condition that the petitioners shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for the purpose of interrogation. 8. The petitioners shall appear before the Magistrate concerned within a period of 15 days failing which the anticipatory bail granted shall stand automatically cancelled. sd/- 02/12/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TENKASI, TIRUNELVELI DSITRICT 2. THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT 3. INSPECTOR OF POLICE COURTALLAM POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DIST 4. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. S.KARTHIK Advocate SR.No.42491 GH : 08.12.2011 : 2P/6C ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.15078 of 2011 Date :02/12/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/