BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Eleventh day of March Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.S.RAMANATHAN CRL OP(MD) No.3088 of 2011 C. PASUPATHI PANDIYAN ..PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 Vs. THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE K.K. NAGAR POLICE STATION, TRICHY CITY. CR NO. 800 / 2010 ..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. R.ANAND Advocate For Respondent : MR.L.MURUGAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 147, 406, 420, 307 and 506(ii) of I.P.C., in Crime No.800 of 2010, on the file of the respondent police. They have approached this Court for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner gave power to one Solomon Devaraj and the power agent was permitted by the petitioner to handle with the properties and thereafter, during the middle point of time as his power of attorney has been cancelled the defacto complainant appears to have cancelled the power and after coming to know of the same, the power agent filed a suit in O.S. No. 634 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Trichy, against the defacto complainant and four others and in that suit, a joint memo was filed and on the basis of the suit was decreed and the cancellation of power was declared as illegal thereafter another case was filed against the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even though decree was passed in O.S. No. 634 of 2009 on 21.1.2010, no steps were taken by the defacto complainant to set aside the decree. The decree has become final. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. The learned Government Advocate submitted that as per F.I.R, the defacto complainant was threatened by the petitioner and the petitioner was habitual offender and more than 18 cases were filed against the petitioner and 10 cases are pending trial. 5. Considering the fact that the defacto complainant had not taken any steps to set aside the decree passed in O.S. No. 634 of 2009 and had accepted the decree and the petitioner is acting on behalf of the power agent of the defacto complainant, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail. 6. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail, in the event of his arrest or on his appearance before the Judicial Magistrate concerned on executing 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 Judicial Magistrate No.II, Trichy, and on further condition that the petitioners shall appear before the Police, Asthampatti Police Station, Salem, for the purpose of interrogation. 7. The petitioners shall appear before the Magistrate concerned within a period of 15 days, failing which, the anticipatory bail granted shall stand automatically cancelled. sd/- 11/03/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II, TRICHY. 2 -Do-Thro' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TRICHY. 3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE K.K. NAGAR POLICE STATION, TRICHY CITY. 5 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ASTHAMPATTI POLICE STATION, SALEM. +1. CC to M/S. R.ANAND Advocate SR.No.6096 akm/16.03.11 /1p-7c/ ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.3088 of 2011 Date :11/03/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/