BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Twentieth day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.12453 of 2011 1 KARTHI, 2 THAKAIYA @ PRABHAKARAN, 3 SARAVANAN ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.3, 5 & 6 Vs THE STATE REP. BY ITS THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, C5 KARIMEDU POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT. CRIME NO.1947/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT FOR PETITIONER : M/S.B.JEYAKUMAR 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 petitioners/Accused Nos.3,5 and 6 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147,148,341,294(b),465,420 and 506(ii) IPC, in Crime No.1947 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 alleged occurrence is said to have been taken place on 25.02.2008 and a complaint was given on 09.08.2011 and the case has been registered against six persons under Sections 147,148,341, 294(b),465,420 and 506 (ii) IPC. He further submits that the petitioners are arrayed as A3,A5 and A6. The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant herein purchased a property in the area where A1 was residing in the year 2008. Thereafter, A1 threatened the de-facto complainant to sold the same in favour of him. Even as per the version of the prosecution on 25.02.2008, the petitioners A3,A5 and A6 accompanying A1 threatened the de-facto complainant with dire consequences except this no allegation is against the petitioners. He further submits that there is a delay in preferring the complaint and the case has been registered on 09.08.2011 and the investigation is considerably over and hence, they pray for anticipatory bail. 3.Refuting the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.Side) submits that the property originally belongs to Susila and she sold the property in favour of the de-facto complainant in the year 2008 and the de-facto complainant made a new construction, but A1 threatened the de-facto complainant to execute the sale deed in favour of him. Further on 25.02.2008 A1 along with A3,A5 and A6 threatened the de- facto complainant with dire consequences. Furthermore, A1 has fabricated the sale agreement as if the original owner Susila and her children executed the same. Now, regarding that a civil suit is pending. He https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ further submits that the de-facto complainant, Susila and her children received the forged summons and now the de-facto complainant filed a petition to the District Judge which is pending for enquiry. The petitioners A3 and A5 are having two previous cases and A6 is having one previous case and the investigation is pending and hence he prays for dismissal of the petition. 4.Considering the rival submissions made on both sides, it could be seen that the case has been registered against the petitioners under Sections 147,148,341,294(b),465,420 and 506(ii) IPC. As per the arguments advanced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the only allegations against the petitioners is that on 25.02.2008 the petitioners accompanying A1 threatened the de-facto complainant with dire consequences. Except this nothing has made against the petitioners in the allegation made against them and even though the petitioners were not arrested they neither interfered with the investigation nor absconded from the jurisdiction, 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 their arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai, Madurai 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 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/- 20/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.V, MADURAI. 2 DO-THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, C5 KARIMEDU POLICE STATION, MADURAI. 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1 CC TO M/S.B.JEYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE SR.NO.32334. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.12453 of 2011 Date :20/09/2011 2P/6C RPB 22.09.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/