BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Eleventh day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD) No.14356 of 2011 KANDHASAMY : PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 Vs. THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, TIRUNELVELI. CRIME NO.69/2011 : RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. P.ARUN JAYATRAM Advocate For Respondent : Mr. K.S.DURAIPANDIAN Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police in Crime No.69 of 2011, for offences under Sections 406, 465, 468, 420, 120(b) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner is before this Court seeking Anticipatory Bail. 2. According to the case of the prosecution, the petitioner is the owner of the property in question. The first accused informed to the de facto complainant that the petitioner had agreed to sell the property to him. On the said assurance, the first accused entered into an agreement with the de facto complainant to get the property transferred in the name of the de facto complainant. On that oral agreement, the first accused has received a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- by means of cheques. Later on, the petitioner declined to sell the property to anybody. The first accused has not returned the cheques to the de facto complainant. With the above allegations, the present case has been registered against the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not agreed to sell the property to anybody. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. I have considered the above submissions. As of now, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had any connection with the de facto complainant and that he agreed to sell the property either to the first accused or to the de facto complainant. The transaction is between the first accused and the de facto complainant, in which the petitioner has got nothing to do with the same. 5. In such view of the matter, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, but with conditions. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli, executing 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required for the purpose of interrogation. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C scrupulously. Sd/- 11/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.1, TIRUNELVELI. 2. -DO- THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TIRUNELVELI. 3. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. 4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, TIRUNELVELI +1 CC to M/S. P.ARUN JAYATRAM Advocate SR.No.39276 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.14356 of 2011 Date :11/11/2011 NSV/14.11.11/2P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/