1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the First day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD) No.13730 of 2011 THIRUMENI ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE T.KALLUPATTI POLICE STATION, CR.NO. 377/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. K.SAMIDURAI Advocate For Respondent : MR. K.S.DURAI PANDIAN, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner is accused No.2 in Cr.NO.377 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police for offence punishable under Sections 420 and 465 of IPC. Apprehending arrest, at the hands of the respondent police, the petitioner is before this Court seeking anticipatory bail. 2.According to the case of the prosecution, the de-facto complainant owned 1.4 cents of land. He executed a general power of attorney in favour of the first accuse don 22.10.201,1 thereby empowered him to deal with the said property. Subsequently, it is alleged that without the knowledge of the de-facto complainant, the first accused sold away the said property in favour of the present petitioner. The petitioner herein is the wife of the first accused. With these allegations, the present case has been registered. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that only after having received the entire consideration for the said property, the power of attorney has been executed on 22.10.2011 and thereafter the first accused sold away the said property to the second accused. The petitioner is an innocent purchaser. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4.I have considered the above submissions. As of now, the execution of power of attorney deed is not disputed. Therefore prima facie, there is nothing wrong on the part of the first accuse,d using the said power, to sell the property. IN such view of the matter, the petitioner is only a purchaser. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that sale consideration was duly paid to the de-facto complainant deserves to be considered. In view of the above, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail, with the following conditions: i)The petitioner in the event of arrest or on her appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumagnalam, should execute 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; ii)The petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required. Iii)The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C scrupulously. sd/- 01/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUMANGALAM 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI 3 THE INSEPCTOR OF POLICE, T.KALLUPATTI POLICE STATION, 4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. K.SAMIDURAI Advocate SR.No.37447 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13730 of 2011 Date :01/11/2011 TR :04.11.2011: 2p/6c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/