1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Fourteenth day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.12157 of 2011 S.ANNAMALAI ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.7 Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE C.C.B.POLICE STATION, IN CRIME NO.76 OF 2011. MADURAI DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. P.NATARAJAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.RAMAR, Addl.Public Prosecutor ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 342, 365, 387, 465 r/w 120(B) of I.P.C. in Crime No.76 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence seeks, anticipatory bail. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is arrayed as A7 and he is working as D.I.G. of Registration in Trichy. He further submitted that there was a dispute between A1 and the defacto complainant, a document was produced before the petitioner for compulsory registration while discharging his official duty. He further submitted that after following the formalities, the petitioner registered the documents on 02.08.2010, against which, the defacto complainant has filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.11919 of 2010 before this Court on 05.09.2010 and obtained an order of interim stay on 07.09.2010. He further submitted that even though, the complaint has been given on 11.08.2011 against eight persons, the matter was compromised between them and the defacto complainant has executed the compromise deed on 12.09.2011. He further submitted that the petitioner is only a D.I.G. of Registration, Trichy and he has been falsely implicated in this case and hence, he prays for enlargement on anticipatory bail. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. Refuting the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that A1 is the whole sale dealer in gold business and the defacto complainant is also doing the gold business. He further submitted that the defacto complainant purchased the gold bar from the first accused and after selling the same, he has to pay the amount for purchasing the gold and in such a way, the defacto complainant is liable to pay Rs.4,50,000/- to A1 for that amount A1 with other accused trespass into the defacto complainant's shop and taken away the defacto complainant to A2's office, where he was threatened and A6 prepared a mortgage deed for Rs.8 lakhs and also obtained signature from the defacto complainant forcibly. He further submitted that the petitioner/A7 has been called for A2's office and registered that mortgage deed, as if the defacto complainant executed the mortgage deed in favour of A1 and hence, a case has been registered against the petitioner. He further submitted that the investigation is going on and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application. 4. Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and also considering the fact that there was a dispute between the defacto complainant and the first accused in respect of their gold business the alleged occurrence has been taken place and the overt act attributed against the petitioner is that while discharging his official duty, he registered the document in favour of A1 and there was a compromise has been entered between the parties on 12.09.2011 and the mortgage deed has been discharged and the same has been registered on 12.09.2011, so I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, with certain conditions. 5. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai and on execute a 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 petitioner shall report before the Court concerned daily at 05.30 p.m. until further orders. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 6. The petitioner 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/- 14/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I,MADURAI. 2 DO-THRP' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,MADURAI. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, C.C.B. POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT. 4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1 CC to M/S. P.NATARAJAN Advocate SR.No.31269 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.12157 of 2011 Date :14/09/2011 PA/19.09.2011/3P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/