BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Twentieth day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD)Nos.11739, 11765 and 11957 of 2011 1 KALIMUTHU 2 CHELLAMUTHU 3 KUPPUSAMY 4 NATARAJ 5 NATTUDURAI ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED 9 TO 13 IN CRL OP(MD)No.11739 OF 2011 K. GUNASEELAN ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED 2 IN CRL OP(MD)No.11765 OF 2011 1. KARMEGAM 2. MUTHUKUMAR 3. SARAVANAN 4. ANAND @ JEEVANANDAM ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED 3 TO 6 IN CRL OP(MD)No.11957 OF 2011 Vs THE STATE REP BY :: THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, DINDIGUL DISTRICT, DINDIGUL. CR. NO. 57 OF 2011 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT IN ALL THE CRL OP'S For Petitioners in Crl OP.No. 11739 of 2011 : MR. V. KATHIRVELU, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR M/S.S. SIVA THILAKAR ADVOCATE For Petitioner in Crl OP.No. 11765 of 2011 : MR. B. SARAVANAN, ADVOCATE For Petitioners in Crl OP.No. 11957 of 2011 : MR. S. MAHENDRAPATHY, ADVOCATE For Respondent in all the CRL OP's : MR. A. RAMAR, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR PETITIONS FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDERS : The Court Made the following orders :- The petitioners/A-9 to A-13 in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11739 of 2011, the petitioner/A-2 in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11765 of 2011 and the petitioner/A-3 to A-6 in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11957 of 2011 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 447, 342, 465, 468, 471, 506(ii) and 379 I.P.C., in Crime No.57 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. Mr.V.Kathirvelu, learned senior counsel for Mr.Siva Thilakar appearing for the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11739 of 2011 and Mr.B.Saravanan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11765 of 2011 and Mr.S.Mahendrapathy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11957 of 2011 would submit that, a case has been registered against A-1 to A-13 on 30.08.2011 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 447, 342, 465, 468, 471, 506(ii) and 379 I.P.C. They further submit that A1 is the Managing Director of Sun Pictures and the defacto complainant is doing film distribution along with A1 and the defacto complainant has sustained loss in his business. They further submit that one Venkatachalapathi, Rajendran and Vigensh have executed a power of attorney in favour of A1 in the year 2009 and on 05.02.2010 and A1 has executed the sale deed in favour of A2 and A2 has sold the same to A8 and A13 on 11.03.2010. They further submit that on 25.03.2010, all the accused trespassed into the agricultural land of the defacto complainant and removed the fences and hence, a complaint has been given on 30.08.2011. They further submit that the said Rajendran and Venkatachalapathy have filed a suit in O.S.No.183 of 2010 and the same was dismissed for default on 18.02.2011 and no steps has been taken to restore the same. Thereafter, the complaint has been given on 30.08.2011 and the petitioners are only the bonafide purchasers and hence, they have come forward with these application for enlarging them on anticipatory bail. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that a case has been registered on 30.08.2011 against 13 persons and A-2 is the purchaser of the property from A-1 and A-9 to A-13 have purchased the property from A2. He further submits that A-1 to A-13 trespassed into the complainant's property and horse farm and removing the fences and other materials worth about Rs.20 lakhs on 25.03.2010. He further submits that the defacto complainant, Venkatachalapathy, Rajendran and Selvakumar were running business in different names. The disputed property viz., horse farm, which is situated at Chattrapatti in Pudukkottai District is containing 165 acres of land. He further submits that A2 has introduced A1 to the defacto complainant, who is called as Sun Pictures Iyyappan and he is doing film distribution business and the defacto complainant joined with A1 and they have jointly done the film distribution business. He further submits that at that time A1 came to know about the property of the defacto complainant and his partners and A1 wants to purchase the property and when A-1 has demanded to purchase the property, the defacto complainant has refused to execute the sale deed and hence, a false case has been foisted by A1 against the defacto complainant and his three partners before the District Crime Branch, Coimbatore, where the defacto complainant was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. 4.He further submits that on 09.08.2009, A1 and his henchmen entered into the defacto complainant's company and taken away the documents in respect of the particular disputed property, which was questioned by one driver Thandapani, who was threatened by the accused. He further submits that the defacto complainant enlarged on bail and thereafter, he came to know about the incident and hence, he went to Chennai and demanded the document from A1. He further submits https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that at the time, A1 was threatened the defacto complainant to execute the sale deed in favour of him and otherwise all the documents will be destroyed. He further submits that since the property has been transferred in the name of Venkatachalapathy, Rajendran and Vignesh, they have executed the power of attorney in favour of A1. He further submits that A3 to A6 keep on watching the defacto complainant not to cancel the power of attorney in favour of A1, however, Venkatachalapathy has executed the cancellation of power of attorney, after escaped from the custody of A1. He further submits that A1 has executed the sale deed in favour of A2 and A2 executed the sale deed in favour of A8 to A13 on 11.03.2010. 5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that thereafter on 25.03.2010, all the accused trespassed into the property of the defacto complainant and caused damages to the property to the tune of Rs.20 lakhs. He would further submit that the power of attorney obtained from the Venkatachalapathy in the year 2009 by A1 was cancelled by Venkatachalapathy on 05.02.2010 and he transferred 5.16 acres land in the name of witness Rajendran, but A1 has illegally utilised the power of attorney executed by Venkatachalapathy and transferred the land in the name Gunaseelan/A2, who in turn executed the sale deed in favour of A8 to A13 as if the lands are legally transferred for consideration. He would further submit that A1 to A5 jointly and criminally indulged in the above said land grabbing act by criminal intimidating and creating power of attorney under coercion. He would further submit that A3 to A7 are henchmen of A1 and they were all along throughout the illegal transaction of illegal land grabbing and the investigation is going on and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application. 6.I have heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on records. 7.These applications have been filed by A2, A3 to A6 and A9 to A13. A case has been registered against A1 to A13 in crime No. 57 of 2011 under Sections 147, 148, 447, 342, 465, 468, 471, 506(ii) and 379 I.P.C. by the respondent police. The owner of the disputed property is one Venkatachalapathy, Rajendran and Vignesh and they executed the power of attorney in favour of A1, from whom, A2 purchased the property and he sold the property to A9 to A13. A3 to A6 who are alleged to be stated that they are the henchmen of A1 and they are keeping watch on the defacto complainant not to cancel the power of attorney. After execution of the sale deed on 11.03.2010, on 25.03.2010, the accused persons trespassed into the property of the defacto complainant and caused damages to the property to the tune of Rs.20 lakhs. 8.The question as to whether the power of attorney in favour of A1 was obtained by coercion and undue influence is to be decided only before the civil forum. Furthermore, the power of attorney is alleged to be executed on 05.02.2010, the sale deed has been executed on 11.03.2010 and the alleged criminal trespassed and criminal intimidation and cause of damages to the property as alleged to be occurred on 25.03.2010. Admittedly, the case has been registered only https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ on 30.08.2011 and there is a delay of nearly 1 year and 5 months and no explanation has been given for the said delay in preferring the complaint. 9.As per the version of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, because of the present scenario, a false case has been foisted against the petitioners. Admittedly, no civil suit has been filed to set aside the sale deed in favour of A9 to A13. The present complaint has been given by one Seenivasan. No doubt the property stood in the name of Venkatachalapathy, Rajendran and Vignesh, but, they have not given any complaint. 10.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the delay in preferring the complaint and the real owners have not been given any complaint against the petitioners herein, I am of the opinion, even though they were not arrested neither they interfered with the investigation nor absconded from the jurisdiction, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 11.Accordingly, these petitioners/A2 to A6 and A9 to A13 are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul and 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 Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioners shall report before the Court concerned daily morning at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 12. The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Judicial Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed. sd/- 20/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II, DINDIGUL 2 DO THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL 3 THE ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT MADURAI 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. 1CC to M/S.S. SIVA THILAKAR Advocate SR.No.32149 1CC TO MR. B. SARAVANAN, ADVOCATE, SR: 32125 1CC TO MR. S. MAHENDRAPATHY, ADVOCATE, SR: 32263: DM::2011:SEPTEMBER:20:: ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.11739, 11765 AND 11957 of 2011 Date :20/09/2011 4P:8C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/