BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Twenty Second day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) Nos.14620 & 14865 of 2011 V.RAJENDRAN ..PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 IN CRL.OP.14620/2011 ANITHA KANMANI R.VEERAPPA P.L.RAMANATHAN R.RAJENDRAN ..PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.2 TO 6 IN CRL.OP.14865/2011 Vs STATE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. CRIME NO.76 OF 2011 ..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT IN BOTH THE PETITIONS FOR PETITIONERS : M/S.A.CHANDRA KUMAR ADVOCATE IN BOTH THE PETITIONS FOR INTERVENOR : MR.M.SUBASHBABU ADVOCATE IN BOTH THE PETITIONS FOR RESPONDENT : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR IN BOTH THE PETITIONS PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL UNDER SEC.438 CR.P.C. IN BOTH THE PETITIONS ORDER : THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER :- The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged commission of offences in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.14865 of 2011 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 506(i), 420 and 406 I.P.C and in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.14865 of 2011 under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2.Heard Mr.A.Chandrakumar learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Subashbabu, learned counsel appearing for the intervenor and Mr.K.S.Durai pandian learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the petitions would submit in his argument that the petitioner in Crl.O.P. (MD).No.14620 of 2011 is ranked as A1 and the petitioners in Crl.O.P. (MD).No.14865 of 2011 are ranked as A2 to A6 in Crime No.76 of 2011. He would further submit that the accused A1 to A6 are said to have committed the offences under Sections 120(B), 406, 420, 466, 471 and 506(1) I.P.C., on the overt acts that the accused A1 and one Dharmaraj were appointed as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ power agents of the de-facto complainant, his father viz., Sudhakar and the de-facto complainant's minor brother to sell the property belonging to them in T.S.No.644/1 for an extent of 1 acre 40 cents Sqft., Chettinackanpatti Village, Dindigul Town on 02.03.2009 and further, the said property was sold by the first accused in favour of her daughter second accused, his son 4th accused and son-in-law 5th accused and his friend 6th accused for a lesser price. The further accusation against the accused was that except the 3rd accused, all other accused had conspired together to prepare forged receipts as if the de-facto complainant and the other executants of power deed have issued the same to the first accused. He would further submit that the said complaint given by the de- facto complainant was not correct and he had received the money immediately after execution of power of attorney on 15.05.2009 as advance and the said signature of the de-facto complainant was attested by the respectable witnesses. He would further submit that the payment made on 17.05.2010 was also attested by the respectable witnesses and therefore, there is no commission of forgery. He would further submit that the accusation is mainly against the first accused and the remaining accused viz., A2 to A6 have no overt acts. He would also submit that the accused persons A1 to A6 are having permanent residence in the town and the matter is relating to a civil dispute regarding the payment of sale price by the power agent to the principal in the power deed and the truth and genuineness of the receipts issued by one of the principals has to be tested only before the civil Court. He would request the Court to grant anticipatory bail. 4.The learned counsel for the intervenor would submit that the alleged payment of money to the tune of 50 Lakhs on 15.05.2009 cannot be true, since the sale deeds have been executed by the power agent only on subsequent dates. He would further submit that the alleged payment of a sum of Rs.7 lakhs made on 17.05.2010, after deducting Rs.3 lakhs from the total sum of Rs.10 Lakhs payable as per the power of attorney could not be true. Since on that date, the signatory in the said receipt dated 17.05.2010 was not in India, but was in abroad. The learned counsel for the intervenor would produce a copy of his passport with visa entry in order to prove the same. He would further submit that the execution of sale deed in favour of close relatives by the first accused would be enough to presume malpratices on the part of the first accused which was assisted by the other accused persons and therefore, the petitioners in both the petitions are not entitled for anticipatory bail. 5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.side) would submit in his argument that the investigation is pending and the custodial interrogation may be necessary for the purpose of continuing the investigation and therefore, the petitioners may not be granted anticipatory bail. 6.Considering the submission made on both sides, I could see that the execution of power of attorney by the de-facto complainant along with his father and minor brother in favour of one Dharmaraj and the first accused for selling the disputed properties is admitted. The main accusation is that the first accused sold the property along with one Tharmaraj, who had not accounted for the sale price. The case of the first accused was that a sum of Rs.50 lakhs was paid on 15.05.2009 and a receipt was obtained from the de-facto complainant and the said amount was paid as advance. Further the case of the first accused was that the balance amount of Rs.7 lakhs was paid on 17.09.2010, after deducting 3 lakhs payable to one kanmani by the de-facto complainant and others and in both the occasions receipts were issued in favour of the first accused by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ de-facto complainant. The specific case of the de-facto complainant is that during the second receipt, dated 17.05.2010 he was not in India to receive the said money and to pass the receipt, but he was in abroad. It is also raised that the payment of money would not come from the consideration of the sale deed executed by the first accused in favour of other accused persons. These two points have to be investigated during investigation and the truth and validity of said receipts have to be ascertained by examining the hand writing experts to which the de-facto complainant has to subscribe his admitted signature put by him during the contemporaneous period. Then only, the criminality of the accused persons could be determined. On a cursory look over the said receipts passed on 15.05.2009 and 17.05.2010, those receipts were addressed to the first accused only. The accusation against the other accused would be that they have conspired together to have the said receipts created by the first accused. The said conspiracy has to be established only during investigation and till then, I could see that a prima facie case for the other accused, except the first accused for the grant of anticipatory bail. Since there is a prima facie case to proceed against the first accused, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the first accused, but the accused 2 to 6 viz., the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.14865 of 2011 are found entitled to the benefits of anticipatory bail. Accordingly the application in Crl.O.P.No.14620 of 2011 is dismissed. 7.The petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.14865 of 2011 are granted with anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petitioners 1 to 5/A2 to A6 in Crl.O.P.No.14865 of 2011 are directed to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul and each of them executing 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 learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul and on further condition that the petitioners 1 & 2/A2 & A3 shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation and the petitioners 3 to 5/A2 to A6 shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m until further orders. The petitioners 1 to 5/A2 to A6 shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 8.The petitioners 1 to 5/A2 to A6 shall appear before the Magistrate concerned within a period of 15 days, failing which, the anticipatory bail granted shall stand automatically cancelled. sd/- 22/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / TO Sub-Assistant Registrar 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II, DINDIGUL. 2 DO-THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. 4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1 CC TO M/S.A.CHANDRA KUMAR ADVOCATE SR.NO.41014. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) Nos.14620 & 14865 of 2011 Date :22/11/2011 3P/6C RPB : 24.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/