1 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.14743 of 2011 1 MURUGAN 2 KANNAN 3 EPHRAIM THOMAS ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED 1 TO 3 ARUTHAKONE ... INTERVENER Vs STATE : REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE THILAGAR THIDAL POLICE STATION, MADURAI CR NO. 2565/2011 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. T.A.EBENEZER Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN, Addl. Public Prosecutor (Crl. Side) For Intervener : M/S.M.KARTHIKEYAVENKITACHALAPATHY, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition insofar as the petitioners 1 & 2 are concerned. Recording his statement, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn in respect of the petitioners 1 & 2. 3.Heard the learned counsel for the intervenor. 4.Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police, the 3rd petitioner/Accused No.3 in Cr.No.2565/2011 on the file of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C, has come forward with this petition seeking anticipatory bail. 5.According to the submission of the learned counsel for the 3rd petitioner, the third petitioner is only a tenant. He would further submit that he has no idea about the nature of title to the 2nd petitioner and he has bona fide entered into an agreement of tenancy with the petitioners 1 & 2 and under which he is conducting a school. He would also submit that the 3rd petitioner is an aged person and he has got permanent root in the society and he is ready to abide any conditions likely to be imposed for grant of anticipatory bail. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 6.The learned counsel for the intervenor would submit in his argument that the 3rd petitioner is actually conducting a school and it is in a dilapidated condition and the third petitioner is also aware of the title to the property and he has wantonly entered into the lease agreement with the petitioners on his individual capacity. He would further submit that the suit filed by the 2nd petitioner was dismissed and sofar no appeal has been filed or pending. He would further submit that if for any reason, anticipatory bail is granted to the third petitioner, stringent conditions may be imposed. 7.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that investigation is still pending in this case and if for any reason, the third petitioner is granted bail, he may be imposed with stringent conditions for the purpose of investigation. 8.Considering the submission of all sides, I could see that the petition filed on behalf of the petitioners 1 & 2 are withdrawn by the learned counsel for the petitioners and therefore the petition filed by the petitioners 1 & 2 is dismissed as withdrawn. 9.As regards the claim of the third petitioner he is stated to be a tenant. The main accusation in the compliant is that the petitioners 1 & 2 have treated the property as that of their own property, but the fact remains that the property is belonging to the Sappani Koil Trust, Simmakkal. It is also seen from the judgment of the II Additional Sub- Judge, Madurai made in O.S.No.508 of 2011 dated 22.08.2011 that the property is belonging to Sappani Koil Trust, Simmakkal and the father of the first petitioner namely Muthu Karuppa Konar was holding the property only as a trustee. Further it has been brought to the notice of the court by the learned counsel for the 3rd petitioner that there was an application filed for condoning the delay in preferring an appeal and it is also pending. At this stage, this Court could see that the investigation is still pending and the third petitioner is found to be only a tenant and he has got a permanent root in the society and he is also sufficiently an aged person. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the third petitioner, but with conditions: 10.Accordingly, the 3rd petitioner is directed to be released on anticipatory bail, with the following conditions: i)The 3rd petitioner shall be released on bail, in the event of his arrest or on his appearance before the concerned Judicial Magistrate and on executing a bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) together with two sureties to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.II, Madurai; and on further condition that ii)the third petitioner shall appear before the respondent police as and when required. iv)The third petitioner 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.) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II, MADURAI. 2. THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE MADURAI. 3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THILAGAR THIDAL POLICE STATION, MADURAI. 4. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. T.A.EBENEZER Advocate SR.No.40935 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.14743 of 2011 Date :21/11/2011 RJ/24.11.11 3p/6c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/