BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Eighteenth day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr. Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.15007 of 2011 1 R.MANICKARAJ 2 ERUTHAIYA MARRY ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NO.1 & 2 Vs STATE REP. BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CITY CRIME BRANCH POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT CR.NO. 52 OF 2011 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. D.SURESH KUMAR Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN, Addl. Public Prosecutor (Crl. Side) 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 commission of offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 420, 120 (b) I.P.C. and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2.Heard Mr.D.Sureshkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.S.Durai Pandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.side) appearing for the state. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioners are ranked as A1 and A2 and the allegations against them in the complaint given by the de-facto complainant was that the de-facto complainant was the Court auction purchaser and however, the petitioners executed a sale deed in favour of A3 in order to defeat the interest of the de-facto complainant. He would further submit in his argument that after filing of the present petition, A1 was arrested and the plea of anticipatory bail becomes infructuous and the second petitioner, who is a woman may be granted anticipatory bail. He would further submit in his argument that the second petitioner has got permanent residence and she would not abscond from the clutches of law. He would further submit in his argument that the second petitioner is ready and willing to abide any conditions likely to be imposed by this Court. 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.side) would submit in his argument that the case is under investigation and the first petitioner was arrested and therefore, the petition in respect of the first petitioner cannot be ordered. He would further submit that the second petitioner, who is ranked as A2 has also joined in executing the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ sale deed and both the accused are on the same footing and if for any reason, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the second petitioner, who is a woman, suitable conditions may be imposed for the secured presence of A2. 5.Considering the submissions made by both sides, I could see that the anticipatory bail sought for by the first petitioner has become infructuous in view of the arrest of the first petitioner. As regards the second petitioner/A2 we could see that the criminality in executing the sale deed along with A1 has to be concluded only at the completion of the investigation. Since the second petitioner is a woman and she has got permanent residence, I could see a prima facie, to grant anticipatory bail in her favour. Accordingly, the petition filed by the first petitioner is dismissed as infructuous and the second petitioner is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail as this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the second petitioner. Accordingly, the second petitioner is directed to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on her appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli and on 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 Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli and on further condition that the second petitioner shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation. The second petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 6.The second petitioner shall appear before the Magistrate concerned within a period of 15 days, failing which, the anticipatory bail granted shall stand automatically cancelled. sd/- 18/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, TIRUNELVELI. 2. THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TIRUNELVELI. 3. INSPECTOR OF POLICE CITY CRIME BRANCH POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI , TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. 4. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. D.SURESH KUMAR Advocate SR. No.40436 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.15007 of 2011 Date :18/11/2011 RJ/23.11.11 2p/6c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/