BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twenty First day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr. Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.15063 of 2011 1 KUTTIRAJAN 2 NAGARAJAN ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED Vs THE STATE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PATTIVEERANPATTI POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. R.BALAKRISHNAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN, Addl. Public Prosecutor (Crl. Side) 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, the petitioners/Accused in Cr.No.328/2011 on the file of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C, have come forward with this petition seeking anticipatory bail. 2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3.According to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the first petitioner is the father, 2nd petitioner is the brother of the de facto complainant and based on a family arrangement entered into between the first petitioner and the de facto complainant, for recovery of money, a complaint has been given but it was not registered by the police. Thereafter the defacto complainant has preferred a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and on that basis, the present complaint has been registered and investigation is pending. He would also submit that the dispute between the parties is purely a civil dispute. There is no criminality in the said complaint. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for anticipatory bail. 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that the first petitioner being the father, had executed a settlement in favour of the 2nd petitioner and on that basis, the panchayatars has decided that a sum of Rs.50,000/- to each of the brothers should be paid by the first petitioner and that was not paid and therefore the complaint has been lodged by the de facto complainant and was registered. The case is under investigation and therefore if for any reason, the petitioners are granted with anticipatory bail, suitable conditions may be imposed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5.On Consideration of the facts involved in this case, there is a civil liability found. However the criminality of the case has to be concluded only at the time of completion of the investigation and on filing of the charge-sheet. Therefore, I could see a prima facie, for the petitioners, to grant anticipatory bail, since they are also having permanent residence. 6.Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to be released on anticipatory bail, with the following conditions: i)The petitioners shall be released on bail, in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the concerned Judicial Magistrate and on each executing a bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) together with two sureties to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai; and on further condition that ii)the petitioners shall appear before the respondent police as and when required. iv)The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days, failing which, the anticipatory bail granted shall stand automatically cancelled. sd/- 21/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NILAKOTTAI. 2. THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE DINDIGUL. 3. INSPECTOR OF POLICE PATTIVEERANPATTI POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. 4. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. R.BALAKRISHNAN Advocate SR. No.40712 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.15063 of 2011 Date :21/11/2011 RJ/24.11.11 2p/6c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/