1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Eighth day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.11769 of 2011 1 ALAGARSAMY 2 MURUGAN 3 NAGAMANI 4 SELVI 5 M. KAMALABAI 6 M. MURUGATHAL 7 R. GNANAPRAKASH 8 M. VASANTHA 9 K. SANTHANA KRISHNAN ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No.1 & 2 & 4 to 10 Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, IN CRIME NO.53/2011, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.M. SUBASH BABU Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.RAMAR, Addl.Public Prosecutor( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 & 4 to 10 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 120(b), 465, 468, 471, 406, 420, 447 and 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.53 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were charged under Sections 147, 148, 120(b), 465, 468, 471, 406, 420, 447 and 506(ii) of IPC and A1 and A2 are the owners of the property and they obtained the same through a Registered Partition Deed dated 14.7.1997. On 18.9.1997, they executed the power of attorney in favour of one Sakthivel and subsequently, they cancelled the same on 6.3.1998. The defacto complainant’s wife one Santhi got the sale agreement with Sakthivel and filed a suit O.S. No. 508 of 1999 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Dinigul, for injunction, which was decreed against which, the first petitioner and the second petitioner have preferred an Appeal in A.S. No.114 of 2009 on the file the Principal Sub Judge,Dindigul which is pending. Since the defacto https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 complainant has no right over the property, he gave a complaint against the petitioners for recovery of the property from the petitioners. He further submitted as soon as the petitioner cancelled the power of attorney, he sold the property in favour of one Chandrasekaran on 9.7.1998 in which the defacto complainant is one of the attestor. So he is aware of the fact that the power of attorney has been cancelled. He further submitted that all the properties he obtained under the partition deed have been alienated in favour of other accused and he is not in possession. It is the civil dispute. The defacto complainant is not the lawful title holder of the property. A false case has been foisted against the petitioner, now the petitioners apprehend for arrest and hence, he prays for enlargement on anticipatory bail. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that A1 and A2 are the owners and they executed the power of attorney in favour of one Sakthivel and Sakthivel sold the property in favour of the defacto complainant’s wife and executed the power in favour of the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant filed a suit in O.S. No. 508 of 1999 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul,which is decreed in favour of the defacto complainant on 11.7.2008 and in that Suit, A1 and A2 are the parties. During the pendency of the suit, the property has been divided in 8 flats and sold in favour of A4 to A10. Hence, the complaint has been given and the case has been registered on 26.8.2011 and investigation is in initial stage. Hence, he prays for dismissal of this application. 4. Considering the rival submissions made by both sides, A1 and A2 are original owners and they obtained the property under the registered Partition Deed on 14.7.1997. It is true that as per the document dated 18.9.1997, A1 and A2 executed the power of attorney in favour of Sakthivel and that has been cancelled as per the cancellation deed dated 6.3.1998. As per the version of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Sakthivel entered into a sale agreement with the wife of the defacto complainant on 5.10.1998. But admittedly, there is no Sale Deed in favour of the wife of defacto complainant. While perusing the document which shows the power deed in favour of Sakthivel has been cancelled on 6.3.1998. Further more, it is true that the wife of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 defacto complainant has filed a Suit in O.S. No. 508 of 1999 and in that suit, it was specifically mentioned that Ex.A2 is only the sale agreement dated 5.10.1998. It is true that the suit has been decreed against which, an appeal is pending. Considering the fact that the civil matter is pending, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. 5.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul, and each of them executing a 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 Magistrate concerned 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. 6.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/- 08/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II,DINDIGUL. 2 DO-THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH,DINDIGUL DISTRICT. 4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1 CC to M/S.M. SUBASH BABU Advocate SR.No.30524 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.11769 of 2011 Date :08/09/2011 PA/12.09.2011/3P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/