1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT (Criminal Jurisdiction) Thursday, the Twenty Second day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.10291 of 2011 1 S.MOHAN KUMAR 2 M.V.PRAKASH 3 MANI :PETITIONERS -Vs- THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPCTOR OF POLICE, KODAIKANAL POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. :RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT T.N.C.Kaushik :Intervenor (MP(MD)No.1/11) For Petitioner : M/S. P.MUTHUVIJAYA PANDIAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.RAMAR, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. For Intervenor : MR.B.TAMILNIDHI, Advocate. PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER:The Court Made the following order:- The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 506(ii), 420, 452 and 468 and 511 r/w Section 34 ans 120(b) of IPC in Crime No.447 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 property in dispute originally belonging to one Sheereen Banu and she purchased the same by a registered sale deed dated 26.5.2005 and she entered into a sale agreement with the A1 on 3.8.2007 and on 18.6.2009 the property was settled in favour of A2 and subsequently settled the property in favour of brother on 10.9.2009 and the first petitioner has filed a suit O.S. No.3 of 2011 on the file of Sub Court, Palani for specific performance and on the basis of the settlement deed dated 10.9.2009 the defacto complainant purchased the property and now they gave a complaint against the petitioners and the case has been registered under Sections 341, 323, 506(ii), 420, 452, 468, and 511 r/w 34 of IPC and the first petitioner is the first agreement holder and the second petitioner is the second agreement holder and third petitioner is the manager under the second petitioner and though they are the bona fide agreement holders and civil suit is pending and now the petitioners apprehend for arrest and they come forward with this application and prays for enlargement on anticipatory bail. 3.Refuting the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that A1 has executed the sale agreement with one Sheereen Banu and in turn, she shold the property to the defacto complainant and again A1 executed the sale agreement with A2 and A2 constructed wooden house in the property and obtained electricity connection and A3 has arranged to execute the document and the case has been registered against three persons and investigation is in initial stage and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4.The learned counsel appearing for the intervener submitted that the petitioner herein has purchased the property from the lawful owner and when he entered into the property at that time the petitioners wrongfully restrained and assaulted them and made criminal intimidation hence, he prays for dismissal of this application. 5.Considering the rival submissions made by both sides, the property is owned by one Sheereen Banu and she purchased the same on 26.5.2005 and the first petitioner has entered into a sale agreement with Sheereen Banu on 3.8.2007, she also entered into another agreement with the second petitioner on 18.6.2009 but subsequently on 10.9.2009 she executed the settlement deed in favour of her brother from whom the defacto complainant has purchased the property and first petitioner herein has filed a suit O.S. No. 3 of 2011 on the file of the Sub Court, Palani on 27.12.2004 and the suit is pending Admittedly, the second petitioner has made construction and he was residing there and obtained electricity connection and gas connection. The document clearly proved that the civil dispute is pending and both are claiming the title. Hence, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. 6.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal 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 appear before the concerned court daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. The petitioners shall comply with theScru condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. pulously. 7.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/- 22/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO: 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District. 2.-Do- Thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul. 3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 4.The Inspector of Police, Kodaikanal Police Station, Dindigul District. +1. CC to M/S. P.MUTHUVIJAYA PANDIAN Advocate SR.No.32632. RP/26.09.2011/2P/6C. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.10291 of 2011 Date :22/09/2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/