1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Twenty Ninth day of July Two Thousand Ten PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.8239 of 2010 JEYALAKSHMI @ MATHIARASI .. PETITIONER/ACUSED NO.1 1.MS.VASANTHA ARUMUGAM 2.TMT.RAJAMMAL ..INTERVENORS Vs STATE THROUGH THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, DINDIGUL IN CR.NO.63 OF 2010. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. AK.AZAGARSAMY Advocate For Intervenors: M/S P.VAIRAVA SUNDARAM 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 petitioner apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 120(b), 406, 463, 465, 471, 420 of I.P.C in Crime No.63 of 2010 and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that it is a joined family property and he has alienated the property for value of Rs.12/- lakhs and on the basis of the complaint given by her sister, a case has been registered in Crime No. 63 of 2010. He would further submit that the petitioner is having share in the property and she has also filed a civil suit in O.S.No. 36 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Natham. 3. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the case has been registered only on 22.06.2010 and the investigation is going on and he wants to secure the records from the Revenue Department and other Department and hence, he prayed for the dismissal of this application. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. Learned counsel appearing for the intervenor would submit that this property and other property originally belongs to one Arumugam and he is having wife, two daughter and four sons. Arumugam died leaving behind his wife and children and the petitioner's husband and elderly daughter and others were residing at Malasiya, since the petitioner has taken the property in her custody and he gave a false statement that both parents died and she alone is the legal heir and alienate the property and she has fabricated the documents and defacto complainant has given a complaint only on 05.03.2010 and case has been registered only on 22.06.2010. He would further submit that the investigation is going on and the petitioner is influenced person, if he is enlarged on anticipatory bail, he will tamper the evidence and hence, he prayed for the dismissal of this application. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the State and also the learned counsel appearing for the Intervenor. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and as per the version of the counsels, the suit property is originally owned by one Arumugam and he died leaving behind his wife and two daughters and four sons and the complaint was given only on 05.03.2010 and case has been registered only on 22.06.2010. The document produced by the intervenor has clearly shows that the petitioner herein has given a false version stating that her parents has dies and she alone is the Legal Heirs of the deceased parents and on the basis only, she fabricated and alienated the property. 7. In such circumstances, the petitioner wanted for interrogation and if the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail, he will tamper the evidence and abscond from the jurisdiction. Hence, I do not find any merit in this application. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 29/07/2010 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, DINDIGUL 2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. P.VAIRAVASUNDARAM Advocate SR.No.27506 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.8239 of 2010 Date :29/07/2010 TR : 30.07.2010 : 2p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/