BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Ninth day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD) No.13963 of 2011 KALYANASUNDARAM : PETITIONER/ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN Vs. THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, MADURAI. : RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. T.LENIN KUMAR Advocate For Respondent : Mr. K.S.DURAIPANDIAN 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 offences under Sections 120(b), 419, 465, 468, 452, 387 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner is before this Court seeking Anticipatory Bail. 2. According the case of the prosecution, as per the First Information Report, there are seven name accused. However, the name of the petitioner herein does not find a place in the First Information Report and he is the brother of the first accused. It is the case of the prosecution that these accused went to the house of the de-facto complainant and took away various documents including certain documents belonging to the de-facto complainant. Thereafter, it is alleged that the signature of the de-facto complainant was forged and power of attorney was also created, based on which, the property belonging to the de-facto complainant was transferred in the name of yet another accused. With the above allegations, the present case has been registered against the petitioner. 3. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, as it has been stated that his name does not find a place in the First Information Report and he is not a stranger to the de-facto complainant, because he happens to be the brother of the first accused. According to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ learned Counsel for the petitioner, had it been true that the petitioner entered into the house of the de-facto complainant, certainly, his name would have been mentioned in the First Information Report. This argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner deserves consideration. But, there is no explanation by the prosecution for the non-mentioning of his name in the First Information Report. 4. In such view of the matter, I am satisfied that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai, 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioner shall report before the respondent police for a period of eight weeks everyday at 10.30 a.m., without fail. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C scrupulously. sd/- 09/11/2011 / 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. +1 CC to M/S. T.LENIN KUMAR Advocate SR.No.38557 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13963 of 2011 Date :09/11/2011 NSV/10.11.11/2P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/