BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Twenty Eighth day of October Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD) No.13690 of 2011 1 G.LAKSHMI 2 G.RAJENDRAN 3 G.RADHAKRISHNAN 4 G.ARUMUGAM 5 VALLI 6 K.PALANIYANDI ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED 1 to 4,8 & 9 Vs STATE BY, INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, SIVAGANGAI DIST ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. C.MUTHU SARAVANAN Advocate For Respondent : M/S. K.S.DURAIPANDIAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) 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, the petitioners, who are the accused Nos.1 to 4, 8 and 9 in Crime No.28 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 419, 420 and 468 of I.P.C, have come forward with this petition seeking anticipatory bail. 2. According to the case of the prosecution, one Ganesan owned 1.47 acres of land. He died long before. The first petitioner is his wife. The petitioners 2, 3 and 4 are the sons of the said Ganesan. 5th petitioner is the sister of Mr.Ganesan. 6th petitioner is the father-in-law of the second accused. According to the case of the prosecution, an agreement was entered into to sell away the above said 1.47 acres to the de facto complainant. But subsequently, a sale deed was executed only in respect of 1.16 acres of land. Now, it is termed out that the 4th petitioner Mr.Arumugam was not a party to the sale deed. But in stead of him, one Ramar, who is the son-in- law of the first petitioner impersonated Mr.Arumugam and signed in the sale deed. With these allegations, the present petition has been filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ de facto complainant himself knew very well that the 4th petitioner Mr.Arumugam was in Chennai and he did not come to the occurrence village to sign the document. He would further submit that there was an agreement between the de facto complainant and these accused and because of the said arrangement between the de fact complainant and these accused, instead of Mr.Arumugam, Mr.Ramar impersonated Mr.Arumugam and signed in the sale deed. He would further submit that Mr.Ramar is prepared to rectify the said mistake. Therefore according to him, the petitioners are entitled for anticipatory bail. 4. I have heard the above submissions. I am of the considered opinion that even if the above arrangement with fraudulent motive has been committed with the consent of the de facto complainant, it is a heinous crime. Even according to the petitioners, the 4th petitioner did not sign the sale deed. But it was signed by Mr.Ramar, impersonating Mr.Arumugam. Ramar, who has impersonated the 4th petitioner is the son-in-law of the first petitioner and brother-in- law of the petitioners 2, 3 and 4. Therefore he would certainly have knowledge that instead of Arumugam, he was impersonating and signing as Arumugam. Therefore, Prima facie, it is crystal clear that all the accused are the parties to the fraud committed in the execution of the sale deed. The readiness of Mr.Ramar will not cure the crime. Crime is always a crime in the eye of law. It cannot be rectified by the subsequent act of the parties. 5. In view of the above position, I am of the considered view that the 4th petitioner, since accused to be victim, as he did not sign the sale deed, he is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. Sofar as the first petitioner is concerned, since she is an aged women, more than 65 years, I am of the view that she would not have knowledge of the above transaction, due to her old age. Therefore, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the first petitioner. Similarly, the petitioners 5 and 6, are also aged 65 and 67 respectively. Therefore, they are also entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. The petitioners 2 and 3 are not at all entitled for anticipatory bail. In this regard, I am justified by the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the said arrangement itself was made by the petitioners with the knowledge of the de fact complainant. Even if it is true that the said arrangement was made with the knowledge of the de fact complainant, surely, the de facto complainant should also be an accused in this case. In view of the above, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners 1, 4,5 and 6 with the following conditions. Sofar as the petitioners 2 and 3 are concerned, this petition is dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the petitioners 1,4,5 and 6 are ordered to be released on bail, in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai, on each 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 the petitioners 1, 4, 5 and 6 shall report before the respondent police as and when required. The petitioners 1,4,5 and 6 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. sd/- 28/10/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE MANAMADURAI 2 -DO-THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SIVAGANGAI 3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, SIVAGANGAI DIST +1. CC to M/S. C.MUTHU SARAVANAN Advocate SR.No.36854 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13690 of 2011 Date :28/10/2011 SMA/31.10.2011/6C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/