BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Twenty Third day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.11591 of 2011 JEYARAMAN : PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 Vs. THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH DINDIGUL. CRIME NO.52 OF 2011 : RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. V.KARUNA Advocate For Respondent : Mr. A.RAMAR Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner/Accused No.A2 apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120(b),420,423,426,465,468 and 471 I.P.C. in Crime No.52 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is arrayed as A2 in Crime No.52 of 2011 registered against 12 persons under Sections 120(b),420,423,426,465,468 and 471 I.P.C. and the petitioner is nothing to do with the commission of offence. He would further submit that A1 is the owner of the property and she executed a power of attorney in favour of A2. A2 entered into a sale agreement with the de-facto complainant for a sum of Rs.6,98,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs and Ninety Eight Thousand only) and an advance of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) was given and it is a registered document and subsequently, A1, A3, A4, A5 and A6 executed a sale deed in respect of the said property on 03.09.2010 to the accused Nos.A7 and A8. A10 to A12 are the witnesses and the petitioner is nothing to do with the commission of offence. He has entered into sale agreement only on the basis of the power of attorney executed by A1 in favour of the petitioner and a false case has been foisted as against the petitioner and hence, he prays for enlargement on anticipatory bail. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. Refuting the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.Side) would submit that A1 executed a power of attornery in favour of A2 on 07.12.2009 who in turn executed a sale agreement in favour of the de-facto complainant on 11.01.2010. A1, A3 to A6 executed a sale deed in favour of A7 and A8. A7 and A8 executed a sale deed in favour of A9 wherein A10 to A12 were attestors/witnesses. A3,A4,A5 and A6 are the children of A1 and the investigation is going on and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application. 4. Considering the rival submissions made by both sides, it is seen that admittedly, on the basis of complaint given by one Santhanam, the case was registered on in Crime No.52 of 2011 against 12 persons under Sections 120(b),420,423,426,465,468 and 471 I.P.C. The petitioner is arrayed as A2. Originally, the property which is in dispute, belongs to A1. A2 to A6 are the children of A1. A1 executed a power of attorney in favour of A2/the petitioner on 07.12.2009. In pursuance of the said power of attorney, he entered into a sale agreement with the de-facto complainant on 11.01.2010 which is a registered sale agreement. Even though the price has been fixed for Rs.6,98,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs and Ninety Eight Thousand only) and Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) has been paid as advance, one year time is granted for execution of sale deed. However, A1 and A3 to A6 executed a sale deed in favour of A7 and A8. Admittedly, the petitioner is neither a party as executant nor an attestor and so that the ingredients of Sections 120(b), 420, 423, 426, 465, 468 and 471 I.P.C have not been prima facie made out as against the petitioner if at all the de-facto complainant filed a specific performance as against the principal and agent and it is purely civil in nature and in such circumstances, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. 5. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul, and on his 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 learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioner shall report before the Court concerned daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 6. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed. Sd/- 23/09/2011 / 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 JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.2 DINDIGUL 2. -DO- THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. 3. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. 4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, DINDIGUL. +1 CC to M/S. V.KARUNA Advocate SR.No.33085 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.11591 of 2011 Date :23/09/2011 NSV/28.9.11/3P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/