BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twenty Eighth day of December Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr. Justice S. RAJESWARAN CRL OP(MD) No.17397 of 2011 1 P.M.MOHAMED MOHIDEEN 2 P.M.BULKEES 3 P.M.AYISHA 4 P.M.SYED MYDEEN 5 P.M.PATHIMUTHU ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NO.1 TO 5 Vs STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ANTI LAND GRABBING CELL, CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT, CR.NO.67/2011 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. J.SENTHIL KUMARAIAH 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 offence punishable under Sections 120(b), 420, 468 and 471 of IPC in Crime No.67 of 2011, on the file of the respondent police. They have approached this Court for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Heard Mr.J.Senthil Kumaraiah, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.C.Ramesh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3. The case of the petitioners is that the de-facto complainant has purchased the land from one Puli Mohamed Mathar, who is the father of the petitioners/accused. In the meantime, the petitioners/accused executed a power of attorney to one V.P.Karthikeyan, who is arrayed as A-6. After that the said land was sold to A-8 and A-9. It is also represented that the civil suit is already pending between the de-facto complainant and the accused Nos. 1 to 5 in O.S.No. 512 of 2010 before the District Munsif, Tirunelveli. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they did not committed any crime as stated in the complaint. He would submit that they have been falsely implicated in this case. He would also submit that they are also having permanent residence and therefore, he would request for the grant of anticipatory bail. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that due to property dispute, the petitioners have been implicated. He would further submit that the investigation is pending and if for any reason, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners, suitable conditions may be passed for the secured presence of the petitioners. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that these petitioners are the bona fide purchaser, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, of course, subject to certain stringent conditions. 7. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the Judicial Magistrate concerned on executing separate 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 Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli, and on further condition that the petitioners shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders for the purpose of interrogation. 8. The petitioners shall appear before the Magistrate concerned within a period of 15 days, failing which, the anticipatory bail granted shall stand automatically cancelled. sd/- 28/12/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE DISTRICT MUNSIF, TIRUNELVELI. 2. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, TIRUNELVELI. 3. THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TIRUNELVELI. 4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ANTI LAND GRABBING CELL, CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. 5. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. J.SENTHIL KUMARAIAH Advocate SR.No.46184 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.17397 of 2011 Date :28/12/2011 RJ/29.12.11 2p/7c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/