1 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 K.N. BASHA CRL OP(MD) No.17090 of 2011 SRIRAM ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.5 Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PATTUKKOTTAI TOWN POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR DISTRICT, CRIME NO.552 OF 2011 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. D.R. MURUGESAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.R.RAMACHANDRAN, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who has been arrayed as A-5, apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 467, 420 and 506(ii) IPC in Crime No. 552 of 2011 and seeks anticipatory bail. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been arrayed as A-5 out of five accused and has been implicated for the alleged offence under Sections 294(b), 467, 420 and 506(ii) IPC. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation against the petitioner is to the effect that a power of attorney document was executed by other co-accused in favour of this petitioner / A5. However, it is submitted that A5 executed a settlement deed in favour of one A1 and A1 in turn entered into a sale agreement with the de-facto complainant suppressing the earlier transaction and as such the petitioner has been implicated. He would further submit that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner has been implicated in this case on the allegation that a power of attorney document was executed by other co-accused in favour of this petitioner/A5. A5 executed a settlement deed in favour of A1 and A1, in turn, entered into a sale agreement with the de-facto complainant suppressing the earlier transaction. He would further submit that the investigation is still pending. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. It is seen that the entire allegations are borne out by records and documents and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation is not necessary and hence, this Court is inclined to grant the relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai, on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned or to the satisfaction of the respondent Police or the Police Officer who intends to arrest and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police on all Saturdays at 10.30 a.m., for a period of eight weeks and thereafter, he shall be available for interrogation as and when required. 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, PATTUKOTTAI. 2. THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE THANJAVUR AT KUMBAKONAM. 3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PATTUKKOTTAI TOWN POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR DISTRICT. 4. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. D.R. MURUGESAN Advocate SR.No.45613 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.17090 of 2011 Date :23/12/2011 RJ/6.1.12 2p/6c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/