BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Nineteenth day of December Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.16575 of 2011 THANVANTHIRI ... PETITIONER(S) / ACCUSED 1 Vs STATE REP BY:: THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT, CRIME NO.31/2011 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. R.MAHESWARAN Advocate For Respondent : MR. K.S. DURAIPANDIAN,ADDITIONAL PUBLIC POROSECUTOR PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner/Accused 1 apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 409 of IPC, in Crime Number 31 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioner is the owner of the property even from the year 1980 onwards and the de facto complainant has falsely come with the complaint taking advantage of her name in the encumbrances and in the revenue records. He would further submit that it is not so in the incumbrances and he has produced the encumbrance certificate in support of his argument. He would further submit that the petitioner is having permanent residence and root in the society and the dispute in between the parties is of civil nature and therefore, the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail. 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that even though the dispute appears to be civil in nature, there is criminality attached to it and it may be confirmed only at the final stage of investigation and if for any reason, the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is ordered to be released on bail, stringent conditions may be imposed for his secured presence. 5.Considering the submissions made by both sides, I could see that the dispute in between the de facto complainant and the petitioner is in respect of a landed property. One had purchased the property in the year 1980 and another had purchased the property in the year 1985. Under the said circumstances, the dispute in between them appears to be civil nature, however criminality in selling a property could be seen only during the investigation and therefore this Court could see a prima facie case for the petitioner to be granted with anticipatory bail. Accordingly, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with the following conditions: i)Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivagangai 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 concerned and on further condition, ii)that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily in the evening i.e at 5.30 p.m for a period of three weeks. iii)The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. iv)The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed. sd/- 19/12/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SIVAGANGAI 2 DO THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SIVAGANGAI 3 THE ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT MADURAI 4 THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT 1. CC to M/S. R.MAHESWARAN Advocate SR.No.44285: DM::2011:DECEMBER:21:: ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.16575 of 2011 2P:6C:: Date :19/12/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/