BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Second day of August Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.9442 of 2011 NAVANEETHAKRISHNAN @ DURAI ..PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED Vs. STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VEERAKERALAMPUDUR POLICE STATION, IN CR.NO.124 OF 2011. TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. ..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. S.MURUGAN 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/Sole accused apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b),384, 506(i) of IPC r/w Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003 in Crime No.124 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and a false case has been foisted against the petitioner and the petitioner's father entered into a sale agreement with the defacto complainant and the other co-owners of the property in 16.6.2004 and he got the sale deed on 10.10.2007 and he also obtained possession of the property and the petitioner is nothing to do with the transaction between the petitioner's father and the defacto complainant and he apprehend for arrest and hence, he prays for enlargement on anticipatory bail. 3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.Side) would submit that the defacto complainant borrowed Rs.50,000/- from the petitioner and the petitioner charged exorbitant interest on the amount and he got the sale deed in his favour and one previous case is pending against the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. Considering the rival submissions made by both sides, this Court could find that the defacto complainant and the other co-owners of the property entered into a sale agreement with the father of the petitioner on 16.4.2007 and the complaint was given on 7.7.2011. Considering the same and even though the petitioner was not arrested he neither interfered with the investigation nor absconded from the jurisdiction, 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 arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Shencottah, Tirunelveli District, 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 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, anticipatory bail petition stands dismissed. sd/- 02/08/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SHENCOTTAH, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. 2 -Do-Thro' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TIRUNELVELI. 3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VEERAKERALAMPUDUR POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. +1. CC to M/S. S.MURUGAN Advocate SR.No.25538 akm/03.08.11 /2p-6c/ ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.9442 of 2011 Date :02/08/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/