BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Sixteenth day of August Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.8999 of 2011 R.CHINNASAMY ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4 Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, MADURAI CITY, IN CR.NO.53 OF 2011, MADURAI DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. S.MUTHALRAJ Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.RAMAR, 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 offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 427, 448, 468, 471 and 506(i) IPC in Crime No.53 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that a false case has been foisted against him for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 427, 448, 468, 471 and 506(i) IPC and he was arrayed as A4 and he is a sub-tenant under A2/Mariselvam and he is running 'Alaghu Xerox' and he is nothing to do with the alleged commission of offence and he apprehends for arrest and hence, he prays for enlargement on anticipatory bail. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.side) would submit that the property originally belonged to one Eswaralal, he executed the usufructuary mortgage in favour of A1 for a sum of Rs.2,75 lakhs and another property in favour of one Nageswararao and Vickram in the year 2004 and after the death of Eswaralal, the defacto complainant's son has redeemed the mortgage and that Nageswararao and Vickram have handed over the possession that was kept in lock and key by the defacto complainant. Even though, A1 has received that amount, he has refused to hand over the possession. He would further submit that A1 has fabricated the document as if her husband has executed the rental deed in favour of A1. He further submit that A1 along with A2, A3 and A5 trees-passed into the property and they constructed one musical shop and in between the two properties there was a vacant site where is xerox shop has been constructed. He would further submit that the complaint has been given on 15.07.2011, except A1 and A4, others were arrested and remanded to judicial custody and the investigation is going on and therefore, custodial interrogation is necessary since he created a rental deed and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also considering the fact that admittedly, the properties are mentioned as Item Nos.1 and 2 are belonging to the defacto complainant's husband i.e. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Eswaralal, he executed a mortgaged deed regarding one portion in favour of A1 and another portion to one Nageswararao and Vickram and after the death of Eswaralal, the defacto complainant and his son has redeemed the mortgage deed in the year 2007, but, the first accused has not handed over the possession, he demolished the same and made a construction of common toilet and enjoying the property and he also forged the rental deed as if Eswaralal has execute the rental deed in favour of A2. A1 has trees-passed into the property which was mortgaged in favour of Nageswararao and Vickram and demolished the building and they put up a musical shop, in between the musical shop and common toilet, there was a vacant site where A2 has constructed a xerox shop in which the petitioner herein was a tenant and enjoying the property, but as per the version of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.side), A2, A3 and A5 were arrested and remanded to judicial custody and A1 is still absconding, in such circumstances, the custodial interrogation is necessary, if the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail, he will interfere with the investigation and abscond from the jurisdiction and hence, I do not find any merit in this petition. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. sd/- 16/08/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, MADURAI CITY, MADURAI DISTRICT. 2. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC TO M/S. NA.PALANIYANDI, ADVOCATE SR.NO.27853 SR : 22.08.2011 : 2p/4c ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.8999 of 2011 Date :16/08/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/