BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Twenty Fifth day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.15429 of 2011 1. MUTHUKRISHNAN 2 (*) KASI RAJA 3. MUTHU ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 2 TO 4 Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRUKURUNGUDI POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT, CRIME NO.191/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. S.M.ANANTHA MURUGAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAI PANDIAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners/A2 to 4 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 147, 465, 467, 468, 420, 506(ii) read with 109 I.P.C. in Crime No.191 of 2011, on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Heard Mr.S.M.Anantha Murugan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.S.Duraipandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State. 3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely impleaded as accused A2 and 3, 4 in the case, in which, there is no criminality. He would further submit that the 1st accused had obtained title to the property from a will executed by his father S.Lakshmana Thevar, who died subsequently and thereby he got the title to the property and sold the same on the foot of the will and thereafter, A2 has sole the property to A3 and A4 is said to have arranged the sale in between A2 and A3. He would further submit that the case of the complainant is that the will was forgedly created by the testator Lakshmana Thevar cannot be true, since he died long back, the will being a registered one, either the 1st accused or the present petitioners cannot be blamed. He would further https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ submit that the defacto complainant is claiming the right over the property through a settlement deed executed by his mother and the right in respect of the suit property has to be testified before a civil Court and therefore, there is no criminality against the petitioners in this case and therefore, he requests the court to grant anticipatory bail. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that the will was forgedly created by father of A1 and it was pursued by A1, by selling the property to A2 and in turn, he has sold the property to A3 with the help of A4 and all these things have been very much known to the accused persons that they not any title to the property and therefore, they have got criminal intention to commit the offence. He would further submit that investigation is still pending and if for any reasons, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail, suitable conditions may be imposed for the secured presence of the accused persons. 5. Considering the submissions made by both sides, I could see that in respect of the same property, the defacto complainant is claiming through a settlement deed executed by his mother and the 1st accused has claimed it through a will executed by his father in the year 2007. No doubt, the said will is a registered one and the settlement deed was also a registered one. The 1st accused, as the heir of his father Lakshmana Thevar, the testator, had executed the sale deed in favour of the 2nd accused and in turn, he has executed the sale deed in favour of the 3rd accused. Whether the ownership of the property is with the mother of the defacto complainant or with the father of the 1st accused has to be seen before a civil foram. However, whether there is any criminality attached with the petitioners and A1 has to be seen only at the conclusion of the investigation and therefore, I could see prima facie case for the grant of anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioners. 6. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail, in the event, of the arrest or on their appearance before the Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, 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, Valliyoor and on further condition that the petitioners should appear before the respondent police as and when required and they should not interfere with the investigation and not proceed with the further transactions in respect of the said property until further orders. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. The petitioners 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/- 25/11/2011 (*)AMENDED AS PER THE ORDERS OF HON'BLE COURT MADE IN MP(MD)No. 1 of 2011 in Crl OP(MD)No. 15429 of 2011 dated: 14.12.2011 Time already granted, for executing sureties, is extended for a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. sd/- 14/12/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO TO BE SUBSTITUTED TO THE ORDER COPY ALREADY DESPATCHED: 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VALLIYOOR. 2. -DO- THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TIRUNELVELI. 3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUKURUNGUDI POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. 4. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. S.M.ANANTHA MURUGAN Advocate SR.No.43891 SR : 30.11.2011 : 3P/6C DM::2011:DECEMBER:22:: ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.15429 of 2011 Date :25/11/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/