1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT (Criminal Jurisdiction) Thursday, the Tenth day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD)No.13938 of 2011 1 KANDASAMY 2 SUBRAMANIAN @ VENNAIKARAR :PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NOS.1 & 3 -Vs- THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, KARUR. CRIME NO.32 OF 2011. :RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT SIVASAMY :INTERVENOR(MP(MD)NO.1/11) For Petitioner : M/S. N.SHANMUGASELVAM Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. For Intervenor : MR.A.ATHIMOOLAPANDIAN, Advocate. PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 Cr.P.C. ORDER:The Court Made the following order:- There are two petitioners in this petition. They are accused Nos. 1 and 3 respectively in Crime No.32 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police for offences under Sections 420 and 506(i) IPC. Seeking anticipatory bail, they are before this Court with this petition. 2.According to the case of the prosecution, the wife of the de-facto complainant owned an immovable property. She had earlier entered into a sale agreement with a third party on 16.10.2002 to sell the same to him Subsequently, it is alleged that on 18.06.2007, the de-facto complainant and his wife were taken to the Sub Registrar's office by the accused, where they were forced to execute a cancellation of sale agreement, dated 16.10.2002 and immediately on the same day to execute a sale deed thereby transferring title for the said property in favour of the first petitioner. It is further alleged that the first petitioner agreed to pay a total sum of Rs.98 lakhs as sale consideration, but a sum of Rs.12,50,000/- alone was mentioned in the sale deed. The said amount of Rs.12,50,000/- was paid in the Sub Registrar's office. The first petitioner further assured that the balance amount will be given at his house on the same day. Later on, the said amount was not paid. When the de-facto complainant approached the accused demanding the money, he was threatened stating that the father-in-law of the second accused was then a Minister in the cabinet and using his name, the de-facto complainant and his family members were threatened. But when the de-facto complainant went to the police with a complaint, the police officer in-charge of the station declined to receive the complaint stating that the petitioners were all powerful people. Because of the political clout the petitioners had, the de-facto complainant could not prosecute the matter further. After the above stated Minister had gone out of power due to change of Government, the de-facto complainant got emboldened to prefer the present complaint. Based on the complaint dated 27.09.2011, the present case has been registered for offence, under Sections 420 and 506(i) IPC. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3.Precisely, the allegation is that the property worth Rs.98 lakhs has been grabbed by the petitioners by force from the de-facto complainant and by obtaining a sale deed executed on 18.06.2007 for a paltry sum of Rs.12,50,000/-. 4.These petitioners as well as the second accused filed petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Karur for anticipatory bail. The learned Sessions Judge has granted anticipatory bail to the second accused on imposing certain conditions vide order in Crl.M.P.No.1510 of 2011. One such condition is that the second accused should deposit a sum of Rs.10 lakhs before the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Karur, and he would also produce security for Rs.25 lakhs such as bank guarantee. So far as the accused 1 and 3, who are the petitioners herein, are concerned, the request for anticipatory bail was declined by the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge has given cogent reasons, more particularly, the reason that if anticipatory bail is granted, the same would derail the entire investigation. 5.The learned Senior Counsel would deny all the above allegations According to him, so far as the second petitioner/third accused is concerned, there is no specific overt act attributed against him and the only allegation is that he only acted as a broker. Thus, according to him, there is absolutely no case made out as against the second petitioner. So far as the first petitioner is concerned, the learned Senior counsel would point out that in the year 2002, the sale agreement was entered into between the de-facto complainant and the third party in which the sale consideration was fixed only at Rs.7,50,000/-. But the de-facto complainant did not execute the sale deed in favour of the person, who was the agreement holder He would further submit that the de-facto complainant incurred loan dues from various institutions like banks. In order to settle the same only, he wanted to sell the property in the year 2011, Accordingly, the sale deed was executed for Rs.12,50,000/-. The de-facto complainant and his wife were not at all forced to execute the sale deed. The learned Senior counsel would further submit that subsequently, a tenant, who was in occupation of the property declined to vacate. So, a sum of Rs.10 lakhs was paid by the first petitioner for the said purpose and possession was taken over from the tenant. Thus, the entire transaction was over in the year 2007 itself After four years, the present complaint has been preferred only due to political motive. 6.The learned Senior counsel would further submit that since the market value of the property in the year 2002 was only Rs.7,50,000/-, the allegation that the present day market value is Rs.98 lakhs cannot be believed. He would further submit that the market value of the property must be around Rs.12,50,000/- as has been mentioned in the sale deeds. For these reasons, according to him, the petitioners are entitled for anticipatory bail. 7.Re-iterating the allegations made in the FIR, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would oppose the grant of anticipatory bail. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 8.The de-facto complainant has filed M.P.No.1 of 2011 seeking to intervene. The said petition is allowed. The learned counsel for the intervenor would take me through the FIR and other documents to substantiate the contention of the de-facto complainant that the market value of the property is Rs.98 lakhs and the sale deed has been obtained by force by using political power for a paltry sum of Rs.12,50,000/-. He would further submit that the learned Sessions Judge has given cogent reasons for declining anticipatory bail for these petitioners. Therefore, according to him, these petitioners are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 9.I have considered the above submissions carefully. 10.So far as the second petitioner/third accused is concerned, a perusal of the records would go to show that there is no overt act attributed against him except the fact that he acted as a broker. It is also alleged that he received a sum of Rs.2 lakhs as brokerage. Except that he does not appear to have had any major role to play. Therefore, so far as the second petitioner/third accused is concerned, I find a prima facie case for grant of anticipatory bail. 11.So far as the first petitioner is concerned, he is the father of the second accused. The sale deed stands in his name. From the sale agreement dated 16.10.2002 executed in favour of the third party, it could be seen that the market value of the property was fixed at Rs.7,50,000/- even in the year 2002. Considering the escalation of price of immovable properties, I find some substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the Intervenor that the market value of the property would not have been Rs.12,50,000/-, and the same should be something more. It may be true that the property may not worth about Rs.98 lakhs, but it must be worth for more than, Rs.12,50,000/-. The allegation that the first petitioner promised to pay the balance of amount at home after the execution of the sale deed has to be investigated thoroughly. The exact market value of the property and other transactions would make it prima facie clear that it is a case of land grabbing, thereby forcing an ordinary citizen of this Country by a politically influential man to execute a sale deed. This aspect also needs to be investigated thoroughly. The learned Sessions Judge has recorded cogent reasons as to why he is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the first petitioner. As has been stated by him, if anticipatory bail is granted to the first petitioner, it would hamper the further investigation. 12.The main ground of attack made by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners is that for the transaction, which took place in the year 2007, the complaint has been preferred only in the year 2011. But the learned counsel for the intervenor would point out that even in the year 2007, as it has been stated in the FIR, a complaint was given long before to the police, but it was not received by the police because of the political clout the first petitioner had. The fact remains that the first petitioner's son, namely, the second accused, is the son-in-law of a former Minister. 13.The learned Senior counsel would submit that the second accused, namely, the son of the first petitioner, was granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge and therefore, the request of the first petitioner may also be considered. I am of the considered opinion that it https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 cannot be done so. So far as the second accused is concerned, he has got no direct involvement in the crime. That is the reason why the learned Sessions Judge was inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the second accused and thus, the grant of anticipatory bail to the second accused cannot be a valid ground for grant of anticipatory bail to the first petitioner. 14.In such view of all the above facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the first petitioner/first accused as there is a very strong prima facie case against the first petitioner. 15.For a moment, I am conscious of the fact that while deciding the petition for anticipatory bail, this Court would not venture into a detailed documentation of all the allegations and counter allegations. But, since the above facts were argued before me at length, I am bound to record the arguments in order to find out whether any prima facie case is made out against the accused. Therefore, any observation, which I have made in this order shall not be taken as a conclusive finding on disputed facts. I make it clear that any observation made herein is only for the purpose of deciding the request for anticipatory bail. 16.In the result, this petition is dismissed in respect of the first petitioner. So far as the second petitioner/third accused is concerned, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the second petitioner/third accused, but with stringent conditions. 17.Accordingly, the second petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Karur, on 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned; (ii)on further condition that the second petitioner shall report before the respondent police every day at 10.30 a.m. for a period of eight weeks for the purpose of interrogation. The second petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C scrupulously. sd/- 10/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO: 1.The Judicial Magistrate No:I, Karur. 2.-Do- Thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur. 3.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Karur. 4.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1CC to M/S. N.SHANMUGASELVAM Advocate SR.No.38831. RP/21.11.2011/4P/6C. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13938 of 2011 Date :10/11/2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/