BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Sixteenth day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.12181 of 2011 STEPHAN ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 Vs 1 THE STAE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. CRIME NO.37 OF 2010. 2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KODAIKANALPOLICE STATION, KODAIKANAL, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT FOR PETITIONER : M/S.M.AJMAL KHAN ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT : MR.A.RAMAR GOVT. ADVOCATE ( CRL. SIDE) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL UNDER SEC. 438 CR.P.C. ORDER : THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER :- The petitioner/Accused No.1 apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 464,465,468,471,420 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC, in Crime No.37 of 2010 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the de- facto complainant is a paternal uncle of the petitioner and on the basis of complaint given by him a case has been registered on 02.04.2010, after invoking Section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code. Admittedly, the de- facto complainant is the owner of the property and he was executed a power of attorney on 14.09.1998 and on the basis of power of attorney he was executed a sale deed in favour of third party on 10.12.2001 and now the false case has been foisted against the petitioner stating that with the help of A2 he fabricated the power of attorney as if it was executed by the de-facto complainant. The petitioner relied upon the document dated 13.09.2006, in that the de-facto complainant himself cancelled the power of attorney alleged to be executed on 14.09.1998 and he was also issued a notice on 14.09.1998 and hence a frivolous complaint has been given against him and now he apprehending arrest and hence, he prays for enlargement on anticipatory bail. 3.Refuting the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.Side) submits that the petitioner and with the help of A2 he fabricated the power of attorney as if the de-facto complainant who is the real owner of the property as executed in favour of him and on the basis of that, he sold the property to the third party, hence, a complaint was given by the de-facto complainant after invoking 156(3) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Cr.P.C, and subsequently the case has been registered against the petitioner on 02.04.20100 under Sections 464,465,468,471,420 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC, and the investigation is going on and hence he prays for dismissal of the petition. 4.Considering the rival submissions made on both sides, admittedly the property originally owned by the de-facto complainant while perusing the document 14.09.1998, that has been executed by the de-facto complainant in that it was specifically mentioned he executed the power of attorney in favour of the present petitioner and that has been cancelled on 13.09.2006. He also send a legal notice for cancelling the power of attorney on 14.09.2006 but the complaint was given in the year 2010 and registered on 02.04.2010 and the investigation is considerably over and there is no prima facie against the petitioner and even though the petitioner was not arrested he neither interfered with the investigation nor absconded from the jurisdiction, 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, Kodaikanal and on his 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 learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioner shall report before the Court concerned daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 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, anticipatory bail petition stands dismissed. sd/- 16/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KODAIKANAL. 2. DO-THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL. 3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, DINDIGUL 4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KODAIKANALPOLICE STATION, KODAIKANAL, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. 5. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC TO M/S. M.AJMAL KHAN ADVOCATE SR.NO.31949. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.12181 of 2011 Date :16/09/2011 2P/7C RPB 22.09.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/