BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Twentieth day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.12244 of 2011 S. SUNDARI ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED 4 Vs STATE REP BY:: THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, TIRUNELVELI, CRIME NO. 73/2011 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. G.R.SWAMINATHAN Advocate For Respondent : MR. A. RAMAR, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner/Accused No.4 apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 465,467,468,120(B) and 506(ii) IPC, in Crime No.73 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is arrayed as A4 and she has purchased the property from A5. A5 is the great grandfather and owner of the property and he is purchased in the year 1919. The petitioner purchased the property from lawful owner and on the basis of a complaint given by the Kombiah on 09.09.2011, a false case has been foisted against the petitioner along with four others and the petitioner is arrayed as A4, in this complaint itself the said Kombiah who is enjoyment of the property without his knowledge with the political influence the property purchased in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner is nothing to do with the commission of offence and she purchased the property on 09.09.2008 and the complaint given on 09.09.2011 and there was a delay in preferring the complaint and the investigation is considerably over and hence, she prays for enlargement on anticipatory bail. 3.Refuting the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.Side) submits that one Petchiammal and Muthammal executed the power in favour of Shanmugavelayutham. The property belongs to Petchmiammal and she executed the power of attorney in favour of Shanmugavelayutham in respect of six acres and two cents includes 45 cents belongs to Panchayat union that Petchiammal and Muthammal is not the owner of the property; Shanmugavelayutham sold the property in favour of A5, in turn he sold the property to A4 on 19.09.2008 in respect of three acres. A5 sold the property three acres and two cents in favour of his daughter. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petition. 4.Considering the rival submissions made on both sides that the de-facto complainant gave a complaint stating that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property. On 09.09.2008, this petitioner purchased the property that has been questioned and made a criminal intimidation but the case has been registered on 09.09.2011 while perusing the document filed by the petitioner this petitioner herein deriving title in the year 1919 there was a partition between Somasundara Thevar and Latchumanasundara Thevar in survey No.35/1. The property alleged for Somasundara Thevar A5 who is the grand son of Somasundara Thevar and Somasundara Thevar legal heirs of Petchiammal and Muthammal in favour of Shanmugavelayutham. He sold the property in favour of Kallathiyan on 05.05.2008 and in turn he sold the same in favour of the petitioner on 09.09.2008 the petitioner purchased the property on 09.09.2008 and the complaint given on 09.09.2011 there is a delay in preferring three years. The case of the prosecution is that A1 and A3 threatened the de-facto complainant for dire consequences. The petitioner is the house wife and she is alleged to purchase the property from the lawful title owner and the purchase in the year on 09.09.2008 there is no civil dispute pending the de-facto complainant is not derived title complaint itself he is in possession even though the petitioner was not arrested she neither interfered with the investigation nor absconded from the jurisdiction, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. 5.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of her arrest or on her appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli and on her 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 Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioner shall report before the Court concerned daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously. 6.The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, anticipatory bail petition stands dismissed. sd/- 20/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, TIRUNELVELI 2 DO THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TIRUNELVELI 3 THE ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT MADURAI 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, TIRUNELVELI, 1. CC to M/S. G.R.SWAMINATHAN Advocate SR.No.32353: DM::2011:SEPTEMBER:22:: ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.12244 of 2011 2P:6C:: Date :20/09/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/