BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twenty Ninth day of August Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) Nos.9978 & 10860 of 2011 J.NATESHA MOORTHY : PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 IN CRL OP(MD) Nos.9978/11 S.MOHAMMED GANI : PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 IN CRL OP(MD) Nos.10860/11 Vs. THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CITY CRIME BRANCH, TRICHY. CRIME NO.15/2011 : 1st RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT IN BOTH THE PETITIONS THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, TRICHY. : 2nd RESPONDENT IN CRL OP(MD) Nos.10860/11 For Petitioner : M/S. N.SANKAR GANESH Advocate IN CRL OP(MD) Nos.9978/11 For Petitioner : M/S. C.A.GANAPATHI Advocate IN CRL OP(MD) Nos.10860/11 For Respondent : Mr. A.RAMAR Additional Public Prosecutor IN BOTH THE PETITIONS PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 4 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 464,468 and 420 IPC, in Crime No.15 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that originally the property in dispute was owned by husband of A1 and he execute the hiba in favour of his wife who is arrayed as A1 in the presence of notary public. On the basis, she executed the sale deed in favour of A2 in the year 2007. In the year 2008, A2 executed a sale deed to A3. After purchase by A3, mutations were made in revenue records. He appointed A4 as power agent to look after the property. Now, a false case has been registered on 18.05.2011 and the investigation is considerably over and hence they prayed for enlargement on anticipatory bail. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would further submits that after the execution of hiba, the first accused's husband himself handed over the possession and changes were made in the electricity service connection which shows that hiba executed by the husband of the first accused came to effect and possession was handed over hence he prayed for anticipatory bail. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that A1 impersonated her husband signature and created a false document as if her husband executed hiba in her favour and on that basis only A2 sold the property and now the de-facto complainant, who is the brother of the husband of A1 lodged the complaint and investigation is going on and hence he prays for dismissal of the petition. 5. Admittedly, the property belongs to the brother of the de- facto complainant, who is none other than the husband of A1. A1 has dealt with the property since her husband executed hiba and as per the version of the petitioner counsel during the life time of husband of A1, after execution of hiba he himself filed application for change of name in electricity connection. A1 executed a sale deed in favour of A2 in the year 2007. A2 sold the property in favour of A3. After purchase of property, he has taken steps for mutation in revenue records and he appointed A4 as a power agent to look after the property. 6. Considering the fact that the hiba is executed before the Notary Public and during the life time of A1's husband he filed a petition for change of electricity service connection and the petitioners herein purchased the property only on 21.03.2008, but the present case has been registered only on 18.05.2011 and even though the petitioners were not arrested they were neither interfered with the investigation nor absconded from the jurisdiction. Hence, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. 7. 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, Trichy, and each of them 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 Judicial Magistrate No.II, Trichy, and on further condition that the petitioners shall report before the Court concerned daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 8. The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, anticipatory bail petition stands dismissed. sd/- 29/08/2011 / 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, TRICHY. 2. -DO- THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TRICHY DISTRICT. 3. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. 4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CITY CRIME BRANCH, TRICHY. +1 CC to M/S. N.SANKAR GANESH Advocate SR.No.29455 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) Nos.9978 of 2011 & 10860 of 2011 Date :29/08/2011 NSV/30.8.11/3P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/