BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Tenth day of August Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.10357 of 2011 K. VIJAYAN ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED Vs 1.STATE BY THE INSPECTOF OF POLICE, SANARPATTI POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT 2.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, DINDIGUL DISTRICT, CRIME NO.377 OF 2011 ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. VEERA KATHIRAVAN Advocate For Respondent :Mr.A.RAMAR,Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner/A1 apprehends arrests at the hands of the reAspondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 387 and 506(ii) I.P.C. in Crime No.377 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is arrayed as A1. Originally, the property belongs to one Nagarajan and his brother Dhandayutham; that they are the owners of the three items of the property; that since Nagarajan is in abroad, the de-facto complainant who is the brother of Dhandayutham and the said Dhandayutham, availed the loan of Rs.4,00,000/- from Canara Bank, Uluppakudi Branch and that he intended to execute a Sale Deed to one Ravichandran/A2 and Natarajan/A3. The petitioner directed the de-facto complainant to execute the sale deed in favour of A2 and A3. Further, he submitted that the sale deed has been executed on 25.01.2010 and the complaint has been registered on 06.08.2011. Furthermore in the complaint, it is stated that the purchaser-A2 and A3 have not discharged the loan amount to the Canara Bank. Because of the political motive, the case has been foisted against the petitioner, as he is the candidate for Natham Constituency. Hence, he apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police and hence, he prays for his enlargement on anticipatory bail,. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor(Crl.Side) submits that the de-facto complainant Dhandayutham is the owner of the 5 acres of land and he availed the loan on the basis of property from the Canara Bank, Uluppakudi Branch and obtained loan Rs.3,50,000/-. A2 purchased the property with an undertaking to discharge the bank loan, but he failed to do so. At the instigation of the petitioner, the de-facto complainant executed a sale deed to A2. Now the Canara Bank has taken steps to issue notice and thereafter only, he came to know that the bank loan has not been discharged. Hence, the case has been filed and the investigation is pending. He further submits that there is no political motive caused for the person and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application. 4.The admitted facts are that the Dhandayutham is the owner of the property of 5 acres of land and he borrowed the loan from the Canara Bank and A2 agreed to repay the loan and purchased the property and he has not repaid the amount. As per the complainant, that the petitioner herein instigated the de-facto complainant to execute a sale deed in favaour of A2 and A3. Admittedly, the sale deed was executed on 25.01.2010 and that the loan amount is yet to be discharged. In such circumstances, the de-facto complainant is having right to file a suit for recovery of un-paid purchase money. Except the allegations that he instigated the de-facto complainant to execute the sale deed, nothing is against him. Hence, 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.3, Dindigul and on executing a separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for alike 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/- 10/08/2011 / 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.3 DINDIGUL 2.DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE DINDIGUL DISTRICT 3.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 4.THE INSPECTOF OF POLICE, SANARPATTI POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT 5.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, DINDIGUL DISTRICT +1. CC to M/S. VEERA KATHIRAVAN Advocate SR.No.26981 rl/7c – 12.8.2011 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.10357 of 2011 Date :10/08/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/