BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Nineteenth day of December Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N. BASHA CRL OP(MD) No.15255 of 2011 1. K. SUBBAN @ RAJU 2. R. KUMARESAN 3. R. KATHIRESAN 4. M. RAMAKRISHNAN ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4 Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, DINDIGUL DISTRICT, CRIME NO.79 OF 2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. K.KANIMOZHI Advocate For Respondent : MR.C.RAMESH, Additional Public Prosecutor ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences under Sections 120(b), 468, 471, 420 IPC in Crime No.79/2011 and seek anticipatory bail. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been arrayed as A-1 to A-4. The allegation as per the complaint given by one Sajora is to the effect that A-1 namely the first petitioner herein is said to have forged the document in respect of settlement deed in favour of A-2 and A-3, who are the sons of the first petitioner herein in respect of the property belonging to the de-facto complainant. A-2 and A-3 executed a power of attorney document in favour of A-4 to deal with the alleged property. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners have been implicated in this case on the allegation that A-1 namely the first petitioner herein is said to have forged the document in respect of settlement deed in favour of A-2 and A-3, who are the sons of the first petitioner herein in respect of the property belonging to the de-facto complainant. A-2 and A-3 executed a power of attorney document in favour of A-4 to deal with the alleged property. He further submitted that the investigation is pending. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 5. It is seen that the petitioners have been arrayed as A-1 to A-4 and they have been implicated in this case on the allegation, as stated above. The fact remains that the entire allegations revolving around the alleged fabrication and forgery of document are borne out by records and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ documents. In view of the above fact, this Court is of the considered view that the custodial interrogation in respect of the petitioners is not required and this Court is constrained to grant the relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 6. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul, on each of them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned or to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest and on further condition that the petitioners shall appear before the respondent police for a period of four weeks daily at 5.30 p.m. and thereafter they shall be available for interrogation as and when required. sd/- 19/12/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 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 ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. K.KANIMOZHI Advocate SR.No.44566 SR : 21.12.2011 : 2P/6C ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.15255 of 2011 Date :19/12/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/