BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Twenty Third day of June Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.S.RAMANATHAN CRL OP(MD) No.7363 of 2011 1 KARUTHAMMAL 2 PANDI ..PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 4 & 5 Vs. STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRUNAGAR POLICE STATION, MADURAI DIST. CR NO. 243/2011 ..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioners : M/S. S.MAHENDRAPATHY Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.RAMAR, Additional Public Prosecutor For Intervenor : MR.P.SUBBURAJ, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners/A4 to A5 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 506(i) IPC, in Crime No.243 of 2011, on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that even according to the FIR, the de-facto complainant was introduced by one Jeyapaul to A1 and believing the representation of the A1, the de-facto complainant paying 37 lakhs towards advance for purchase of land from A1 and later realised that A1 was not the owner of the property. It is further submitted that the petitioners are related to A1 and on that ground, the petitioners are implicated in this case. 3.It is submitted by the Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.Side) that the de-facto complainant after having realised that A1 is not the owner of the property and demanded to return back the advance amount. This people joint with other accused had intimidated the de-facto complainant. 4.The learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that this petitioners also represented that A1 was the owner of the property and believing the representation, the de-facto complainant paid the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ amount and the petitioners may be directed to deposit the advance received from the de-facto complainant. 5.It is seen from the FIR that the de-facto complainant was introduced to A1 by one Jeyapaul and he has been arrayed as A3 and the amount of Rs.37 lakhs was paid on three occasions. It is further stated that the de-facto complainant demanded the return of the advance amount and the petitioners and others threatened him. 6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the considering the fact that the de-facto complainant paid the amount to A1 through Jeyapaul and the petitioners came to picture only when the amount was demanded back by the de-facto complainant, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai and on 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 Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioners shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of two weeks. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 7. The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed. sd/- 23/06/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.VI,MADURAI. 2 -Do-Thro' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI. 3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRUNAGAR POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT. +1. CC to M/S. S.MAHENDRAPATHY Advocate SR.No.19819 akm/27.06.11 /2p-6c/ ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.7363 of 2011 Date :23/06/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/