BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Seventeenth day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr. Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.14909 of 2011 1 K.PALANICHAMY 2 KRISHNAMOORTHY 3 THULASIAMMAL ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NOS.1-3 Vs STATE REPERSENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PUDHUKKOTTAI POLICE STATION, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT CR NO. 496/2011 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. T.LAJAPATHI ROY 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 petitioners are the accused and they prayed for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 420 of I.P.C in Crime No.496 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police. 2. Heard Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.K.S.Duraipandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the second petitioner has executed a general power of attorney deed in his own capacity on 30.04.2001 in favour of the first petitioner. The first petitioner in turn executed a sale deed in favour of the third petitioner on 13.11.2001 in respect of the said property and the transactions were over in the year 2001 itself and neither the second petitioner nor the first petitioner impersonated the de-facto complainant. But the de-facto complainant has come forward with this petition long after the transactions and the said transactions have not been challenged by the de-facto complainant within the stipulated time under the Limitation Act and this is purely a civil dispute and there is no criminality in this case and the petitioners are sufficiently aged and they may be granted anticipatory bail and they are ready to abide by any condition likely to be imposed by this Court and they have got permanent root in the society. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that the complaint given by the de-facto complainant would go to show that the property belongs to him and in order to cheat him, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ second petitioner impersonated and executed a power of attorney in favour of the first petitioner and by virtue of the same, the property has been taken away from the claim of the de-facto complainant. He would further submit that the investigation is pending and however criminality, could be decided only after the conclusion of the investigation and after filing of the charge sheet and if for any reason the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, suitable conditions may be imposed for the secured presence of the petitioners. 5. Considering the submissions made by both parties, this Court could see that the transactions said to have been completed in the year 2001 in between the parties. Further, the allegation made against the petitioners in respect of impersonation and other aspects, have to be concluded after examining the witnesses as well as after perusal of the other documentary evidences. In such circumstances, I could see that the transactions are 'prima facie' civil in nature and the petitioners are having permanent root in the society and therefore, they are entitled for anticipatory bail, but with stringent conditions. 6. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Thoothukudi 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 Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thoothukudi and on further condition that the petitioners shall appear before the respondent police every day at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 7. The petitioners shall appear before the Magistrate concerned within a period of 15 days, failing which, the anticipatory bail granted shall stand automatically cancelled. sd/- 17/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, THOOTHUKUDI. 2. THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE THOOTHUKUDI. 3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PUDHUKKOTTAI POLICE STATION, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT. 4. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. T.LAJAPATHI ROY Advocate SR. No.40316 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.14909 of 2011 Date :17/11/2011 RJ/22.11.11 2p/6c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/