BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Twenty Second day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr. Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.13972 of 2011 K. ILANGO ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.5 Vs STATE REPRESENTED BY THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, MADURAI DISTRICT, CRIME NO.23/2011 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. S.M.MANOMANI 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 petitioner apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 420, 423, 465, 468 and 471 I.P.C. and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.Heard M/s.S.M.Manomani, 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 submitted that the petitioner is ranked as A5 in the case and the investigation is going on. But, however, the dispute in between the petitioner as well as the de- facto complainant has been reduced in writing on 07.01.2011 and according to the said agreement produced in the typed-set of Papers Page Nos.41 to 45, a sum of Rs.6,90,000/- was paid by the petitioner to the de-facto complainant and the balance sum of Rs.3,10,000/- has to be paid and the petitioner is ready to pay the balance amount to the de-facto complainant. She would further submit in her argument that the petitioner is a power of attorney holder from one K.Pandi and the dispute arose in between the de-facto complainant and the said Pandi and in pursuance of which, the petitioner being the power of attorney has compromised the dispute with the de-facto complainant as per the aforesaid agreement dated 07.01.2011. She would further submit in his argument that the matter is pertaining to the civil dispute between the parties and there is no criminality in the case and hence, the petitioner is entitled for anticipatory bail. 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.side) would submit in his argument that the disputed property belonged to one Muthu and the said Muthu has got every document in his name. However, the said K.Pandi https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ has created the documents by showing that the property belongs to them and they created documents in favour of A3 and A3 sold the property to A4 and in turn A4 executed the power of attorney to A5. He would further submit in his argument that the crime committed by A1 and A3 is serious one. However, it has been brought to the notice of the respondent that the agreement has been entered into in between the de-facto complainant and the fifth respondent and if for any reason, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, stringent condition may be imposed. 5.Considering the submission made by both sides, I could see that the alleged compromise reached in between the petitioner and the de-facto complainant could have been gone into during investigation and till such time, a prima facie case on the agreement produced by the petitioner in the typed-set of papers in Page Nos.41 to 45 could be taken not of in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai 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, Madurai and on further condition that the petitioner should stay at Madurai and he should not leave the country without any permission of the Court and the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police 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 Magistrate concerned within a period of 15 days, failing which, the anticipatory bail granted shall stand automatically cancelled. sd/- 22/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, MADURAI. 2. THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE MADURAI. 3. THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, MADURAI DISTRICT. 4. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. S.M.MANOMANI Advocate SR. No.40962 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13972 of 2011 Date :22/11/2011 RJ/25.11.11 2p/6c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/