1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Twentieth day of December Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.15229 of 2011 1.AL.A.R.S.M.NARAYANAN CHETTIAR 2.S.BALASUBRAMANIYAN, 3.ARIVUNITHI 4.K.MAHENDRAN 5.R.SAMIAYYA ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED G.ATHMANATHAN ... INTERVENER Vs STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANTI-LAND GRABBING WING, THANJAVUR (CR.NO.43 OF 2011) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. S.KRISHNAMURTHY Advocate For Respondent : MR. K.S.DURAI PANDIAN, Additional Public Prosecutor For Intervener : MR. G.KANNAN, Advocate 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 offences under Sections 420, 464, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w 120(b) of I.P.C. in Crime No.43 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and seek anticipatory bail. 2. Heard Mr.S.Krishnamurthy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.G.Karnan, learned counsel for the intervenor and Mr.K.S.Duraipandian, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State. 3. According to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are ranked as A2, A4, A5, A6 and A8 and they are stated to have committed the offences under Sections 420, 464, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w 120(b) of I.P.C. and the first petitioner/A2 is said to have obtained a power of attorney from A1 in respect of the property belonging to the defacto complainant, who is doing business in Real Estate are not correct. He would also submit that a suit is pending before the Civil Court as filed by the defacto complainant seeking for declaration and injunction in respect of the same properties and it is pending adjudication. He would further submit in his argument that when the right, title of the suit properties are pending decision of the Civil Court, the claim of the defacto complaint that he is the owner of the property is sub- judice to the civil Court's decision. 4. He would further submit in his argument that the first petitioner is very much aged person, at 85 years and others are having permanent residence and roots in the society and they would not abscond from the clutches of law. Further the allegation by the defacto complainant would be that without any right in the said properties, the said power of attorney has been executed by A1 in favour of A2 and A2 in turn, executed the sale agreements in favour of accused Nos.3 to 8. However, the first petitioner/A2 has not executed any sale deed so far in favour of any of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 accused and there is no question of any commission of offence, even if the claim of the defacto complainant is true. Therefore, he would request the Court, that the petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail. 5. The learned counsel for the intervenor would submit in his argument that the defacto complainant is the owner of the properties and the defacto complainant was also threatened by the first accused demanding a sum of Rs.1 crore for not taking a claim against him and that the petitioners would execute the sale deeds in pursuance of sale agreements. He would further submit that the petitioners are likely to abscond from the clutches of law and therefore, anticipatory bail may not be considered. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that the investigation is offing and if for any reason, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail, necessary conditions may be imposed. 7. Considering the submissions made by both sides, this Court could see that the first petitioner is ranked as A2 and the accusation against him is that he had obtained power of attorney from A1, in which, the first accused was not having any right title over the properties. Admittedly, the defacto complainant is claiming right over the property and he has filed a suit for declaration and injunction is O.S.No.184 of 2010 before the Principal Sub-Court, Thanjavur and it is pending adjudication. Apart from that the first petitioner/second accused is said to have executed the sale agreement in respect of those properties and it is also an admitted fact that no sale deed has been executed so far in pursuance of these sale agreements. In the said circumstances, the matter is almost a civil dispute, and the criminality has to be found out during the investigation of the case. In the said circumstances, I find that the petitioners are entitled for the grant of anticipatory bail, but with stringent conditions. 8. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thanjavur and 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 Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the first petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation. The petitioners 2 to 5 are directed to appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of three weeks and all the petitioners, especially, the first petitioner/A2 is directed not to execute any sale deed in favour of accused Nos.3 to 8, till further orders, subject to the result of the civil suit pending before the Principal Sub-Court, Thanjavur in O.S.No.184 of 2010. However, it is made clear that if any permission is granted by the Civil Court, in respect of the execution of the sale deeds in pursuance of the sale agreements, the same will bind both the parties. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously. 9. The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed. sd/- 20/12/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, THANJAVUR 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE THANJAVUR AT KUMBAKONAM 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANTI-LAND GRABBING WING, THANJAVUR 4 THE ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. K.GUHAN Advocate SR.No.44789 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.15229 of 2011 Date :20/12/2011 TR : 23.12.2011: 3p/6c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/