BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Thirteenth day of October Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD) No.13595 of 2011 GEEVA PRINCE ... PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED Vs THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRUVATTAR POLICE STATION, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT, CRIME NO.786/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. C.SANKAR PRAKASH Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDIAY,ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police in Crime No.786 of 2011 for offences under Sections 448, 294(b), 506(i) and 379 (NP) IPC the petitioner, who is the sole accused has come up with this petition seeking anticipatory bail. 2. According to the case of prosecution the de-facto complainant is the tenant of a building, where the de-facto complainant was running a shop. Now, according to the prosecution on 23.09.2011, the petitioner took the law into his own hands trespassed into the shop and took away the properties dispossessed the de-facto complainant and looted the same. Thereafter the de-facto complainant has filed a civil suit with a prayer for unlocking the shop so as to permit him to continue to be in possession. On these allegations, the present case has been registered. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that during the year 2011 the de-facto complainant on his own handed over the possession of the shop and thereafter he has gone to the civil court to file a suit. 4. In my considered opinion, the theory propounded by the petitioner is too hard to believe. Had it been true that the de-facto complainant in an amicable manner handed over the vacant possession of the shop he would not have gone to the civil court for filing a suit for appropriate relief. Prima facie, there are materials to show that the petitioner took the law into his own hands, trespassed into the shop and looted the property and dispossessed the de-facto complainant who is the landlord. A man, who intends to take away the property does not deserve any sympathy at the hands of this Court. Therefore the petitioner is not at all entitled for grant of anticipatory bail and this petition is dismissed sd/- 13/10/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ TO 1. THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRUVATTAR POLICE STATION, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT, 2. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI +1. CC to M/S. C.SANKAR PRAKASH Advocate SR.No.35535 GH : 14.10.2011 : 2p/4c ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13595 of 2011 Date :13/10/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/