BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Fourth day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD) No.14038 of 2011 MUTHU ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE TIRUNELVELI CITY CRIME BRANCH POLICE STATION, CR NO. 30/2011, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. S.RAGAVENTHRE Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAI PANDI, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police in Crime No.72 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police for offences under Sections 465, 468, 420, 471, 384, 506(i) and 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner is now before this Court seeking Anticipatory Bail. 2. According to the case of the prosecution, the petitioner is working as an Inspector of Police. It is alleged that the defacto complainant is the absolute owner of the land in question. The defacto complainant is residing in Hyderabad. There is a dispute between her and her tenant. She came down to Tamil Nadu and made a complaint to the police in this regard. The petitioner herein was the one, who has dealt with the petition. He expressed his inability to interfere in the matter, because, the dispute is purely a civil in nature between the landlord and the tenant. Thereafter, the de facto complainant wanted the help of the petitioner to move the Civil Court. The petitioner introduced the de facto complainant to one Advocate by name Mr.Chandrasekaran. 3. It is the allegation in the First Information Report that when the de facto complainant met Mr.Chandrasekaran, he obtained her signature in certain documents under the guise of filing a civil case. She further states that believing that she is signing only for the purpose of filing civil case, she signed the said documents, because she does not know to read and write Tamil. It is the further case of the prosecution that subsequently, the second accused created a sale deed jointly in the names of accused 3 and 4. The de facto complainant came to know that the document signed by her is not a vakalat to be filed before the Court and it is the Power of attorney. All these facts have come to know very recently, and thereafter, she preferred a complaint. 4. The second accused, i.e., the Advocate, was arrested and released on bail. As far as accused Nos.3 and 4 are concerned, a petition moved before this Court by them for grant of Anticipatory bail was dismissed by my predecessor. Fresh Criminal Original Petitions in Crl.OP.(MD) Nos.14024 and 14025 of 2011 filed by them before this Court were also dismissed as not pressed. 5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that except introducing the second accused to the de facto complainant as an https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Advocate for the purpose of filing a civil case, he has not committed any other overt act. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, after going through the First Information Report, would submit that the overt act against the petitioner is that he introduced the second accused to the de facto complainant. 6. From the records, it could be seen that there are no materials to show that the petitioner was either present at the time when the de facto complainant signed the documents at the instance of the second accused nor did he have knowledge that the signatures were obtained from the de facto complainant only for the purpose of cheating her. Thus, I find a prima facie case in favour of the petitioner for grant of Anticipatory Bail. 7. In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is ordered and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, in the event of arrest or oh his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli, on 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required for the purpose of interrogation. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. sd/- 04/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, TIRUNELVELI. 2. -DO- THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TIRUNELVELI. 3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRUNELVELI CITY CRIME BRANCH POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. 4. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. S.RAGAVENTHRE Advocate SR.No.38187 SR : 04.11.2011 : 2P/6C ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.14038 of 2011 Date :04/11/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/