1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Fourteenth day of December Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr. Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.16286 of 2011 L.RAMASAMY ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.1 Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, LAND GRABBING CELL & DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, RAMNAD. (CR.NO.16/2011) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. T.MURUGANATHAM Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN, Addl. Public Prosecutor (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner is arrayed as A-1 in Crime No.16 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police, for offence under Sections 465, 468, 471 & 420 of I.P.C. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 12.11.2011. He has come forward with this petition seeking bail. 2. Heard Mr.T.Muruganantham, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.S.Duraipandinan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the allegation as against the petitioner is that he is said to have fabricated the othi deed in respect of the property belonging to the de-facto complainant. He would further submit in his argument that the petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.138 of 2007 and the same was dismissed by the District Munsif Court, Muthukulathur. In the meanwhile, the de-facto complainant has given a complaint as if the petitioner has committed fabrication of the document. He would further submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and it is purely a civil dispute and there is no commission of any crime by the petitioner. He would further submit in his argument that the petitioner is always available with the investigation and the investigation could have been completed by this time and therefore, the petitioner may be granted bail. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that the petitioner has committed fabrication of othi deed in respect of the property belonging to the de-facto complainant. He would further submit that Handwriting Expert's opinion is awaited and therefore, if for any reason the petitioner is granted bail, suitable conditions may be imposed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. I have considered the above submissions. 6. Considering the submissions made on either side, this Court could see that the offence said to have been committed by the petitioner is fabrication of document and the expert's opinion is awaited. However, considering the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody from 12.11.2011 and there is no question of any tampering of witness since it is depending upon the documentary evidence, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, but with stringent conditions. 7. In the result, this petition is ordered and bail is granted to the petitioner on the following conditions: - (i) The Petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with two sureties each for a likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kamuthi; and (ii) the Petitioner shall report before the respondent police station, everyday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders. sd/- 14/12/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KAMUTHI. 2. THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE RAMANATHAPURAM. 3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, LAND GRABBING CELL & DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, RAMNAD. 4. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. 5. THE OFFICER IN-CHARGE, DISTRICT PRISON, RAMANATHAPURAM. +1. CC to M/S. T.MURUGANATHAM Advocate SR.No.43680 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.16286 of 2011 Date :14/12/2011 RJ/15.12.11 2p/7c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/