1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT (Criminal Jurisdiction) Wednesday, the Twenty Eighth day of December Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S. RAJESWARAN CRL OP(MD) No.17378 of 2011 1 NAVANEETHAKRISHNAN 2 RAMAVENKATA NARAYANAN :PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NOS.2 & 3 -Vs- THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, THENI DT, THENI. (CR.NO.78/11) :RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. M.AJMAL KHAN, Advocate For Respondent : MR.C.RAMESH, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER:The Court Made the following order:- The petitioner apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC in Crime No.78 of 2011, on the file of the respondent police. They have approached this court for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2.Heard Mr.M.Ajmalkhan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.C.Ramesh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3.The case of the petitioners is that the second petitioenr's father along with one Ramarao purchased a large extent of land at Chennai in the year 1961 under a registered sale deed and executed a general power of attorney authorizing the first petitioner to act on his behalf. At this jucture, one Pandiaraj claiming to be the legal heir of one Vijayaperumal Thevar stated that the second petitioner's father has executed a sale deed in favour of his father Vijayaperumal Thevar and he also created a false document in respect of the said properties. The second petitioner has filed a complaint before the District Crime Branch, Chennai, and registered a case in FIR No.454 of 2010. In the course of investigation, the District Crime Branch, Chennai, seized a certificate stating that the said Pandiaraj belongs to Hindu Pallar Community and his income of less than Rs.25,000/-. His wife is the de-facto complainant and she gave a complaint before the respondent police that her husband belongs to Hindu Maravar Community and that the petitioners in collusion with others obtained the certificate that Pandiaraj belongs to Hindu Pallar Community. Therefore, there is a dispute between https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 these two groups, it has been going on sometime on this issue and that for filing the complaint against Pandiaraj and the persons behind him and to thwart the criminal proceedings against the said deceased Pandiaraj and the de-facto compaliannt, the persons behind them are instrumental and filing this complaint in continuance of another complaint filed before the Abiramapuram Police Station, Chennai in Crime No.118 of 2011 as if the petitioners had created false patta. Therefore, this is a case where both the parties have a counter case between them and this matter will have to be decided only in an appropriate forum and the case filed by the respondent police against them cannot be sustained. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they did not committed any crime as stated in the complaint. He would submit that they have been falsely implicated in this case. He would also submit that they are also having permanent residence and therefore, he would request for the grant of anticipatory bail. 5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that due to land dispute, the petitioners have been implicated. Hw would further submit that the investigationis pending and if for any reason, this court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners, suitable conditions may be passed for the secured presence of the petitioners. 6.In view of the above, I am inclined to grant anticiaptory bail to the petitioners, of course, subject to certain stringent conditions. 7.Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to be released on anticiaptory bail, in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the Judicial Magistrate concerned on executing 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, Theni, and on further condition that the petitioners shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders for the purpose of interrogation. 8.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/- 28/12/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO:1.The Judicial Magistrate, Theni. 2.-Do- Thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theni. 3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 4.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Theni District, Theni. +1. CC to M/S. G.PRABHU RAJADURAI Advocate SR.No.46217. RP/30.12.2011/2P/6C. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.17378 of 2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/