BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Fourth day of August Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.9712 of 2011 1 CHITHIRAI PANDIAN 2 PAPANASAM ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NOS.1 and 2 Vs STATE REPRESENTED BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CITY CRIME BRANCH, TIRUNElVELI, CR.NO.20/2011, TIRUNElVELI DISTRICT ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. S.RAGAVENTHRE Advocate For Respondent : M/S. A.RAMAR, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners are arrayed as A1 and A2 in Crime No.20 of 2011 and they were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 03.07.2011 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 387, 506(ii), 420, 463 and 467 I.P.C. and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Exorbitant Interest Ordinance Act 2003, on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek bail. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the alleged occurrence has been taken place on 31.12.2010 and the complaint has been given only 30.06.2011. He would further submit that the defacto complainant himself borrowed a sum of Rs.5 lakhs from the petitioner and he also entered into a sale agreement with A3 for sale of his property. He received a sum of Rs.12 lakhs as advance and the first petitioner has nothing to do with the same. There was a simple mortgage in favour of A2. But after exchange of notice in between 09.05.2011 and 18.05.2011 only, the complaint has been given on 30.06.2011. After six months, they were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 03.07.2011 and the investigation is considerably over and all documents are borne out by records and hence, he prays for enlargement on bail. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the defacto complainant has borrowed a sum of Rs.5 lakhs from the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ first petitioner. At that time, the first petitioner has got the power of attorney in his name. Further he executed the sale deed in favour of A2 for Rs.15 lakhs and a simple mortgage has been executed for Rs.12 lakhs and all the documents are fabricated and the investigation is going on and there are two previous cases pending against the petitioners and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application. 4. Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and as per the averments made in the complaint, the defacto complainant borrowed a sum of Rs.5 lakhs from A1 and he has deducted Rs.10,000/- as document charges and Rs.75,000/- as interest and paid only Rs.4,15,000/-. It is stated in the complaint that A1 had obtained signature from the defacto complainant in blank promissory note as well as the blank cheque. The sale agreement has got in favour of A3 and the mortgage deed has been executed in favour of A2 on 30.12.2010. 5. Considering the document filed by the petitioner, admittedly, the defacto complaint borrowed money, but because of the difference of opinion arose between the parties, as per the version of the defacto complainant, he executed the power of attorney, as well as the sale agreement on 31.12.2010. Further it is also pertinent to note that the defacto complainant has given a paper publication on 09.05.2011. The first petitioner has given a complaint against the defacto complainant, which was registered on 08.05.2011 in Crime No.349 of 2011, then only the present complaint has been given on 30.06.2011. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the that this is case a case and a case in counter and the petitioner was arrested on 03.07.2011 and the investigation is considerably over and documents all are borne out by records and the power of attorney has also already been cancelled, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. 7. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail 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 learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Tirunelveli, and on further condition that the petitioners shall report before the Court concerned daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. sd/- 04/08/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.VI TIRUNELVELI 2 -DO-THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TIRUNELVELI 3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 4 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE CITY CRIME BRANCH, TIRUNELVELI 5 THE SUEPRINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON, PALAYAMKOTTAI +1. CC to M/S. S.RAGAVENTHRE Advocate SR.No.26103 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.9712 of 2011 Date :04/08/2011 SMA/04.8.2011/7C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/