BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Eighth day of August Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.10042 and 10192 of 2011 1. THALAPATHI 2. KODI CHANDRASEKARAN 3. KRISHNAPANDI : PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1, 3 & 8 IN CRL OP NO.10042/2011 MANICKAM : PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.10 IN CRL OP NO.10192/2011 Vs. THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, MADURAI. (CRIME NO.42 OF 2011 ) : RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT IN BOTH THE PETITIONS For Petitioner : M/S. S.MOHANKUMAR Advocate for CRL OP NO.10042/2011 For Petitioner : M/S. K.VELUCHAMY Advocate CRL OP NO.10192/2011 For Respondent : Mr. A.RAMAR Additional Public Prosecutor in both the Petitions PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. IN CRL OP NO.10042/2011 & PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. IN CRL OP NO.10192/2011 ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10042 of 2011 are arrayed as A1, A3 and A8 and they were arrested on 19.07.2011 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 143, 102(b), 109, 406, 420, 387 and 506(i) I.P.C. in Crime No.42 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek bail. 2.The petitioner/A10 in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10192 of 2011 apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 143, 120(b), 109, 406, 420, 387 and 506(i) I.P.C., in Crime No.42 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence seeks anticipatory bail. 3.The learned senior counsel for the petitioners/A1, A3 and A8 would submit that A8 is only the attestor of the power of attorney https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ executed in favour of A6/Krishnasamy by the defacto complainant. He would further submit that even though A1 and A3 are nothing to do with the commission of offence, they were implicated stating that they have made criminal intimidation after obtaining the power of attorney in favour of A6 and grabbed the property worth about more than Rs.4-1/2 crores. 4.He would further submit that except these petitioners as well as A-10 and A-12, other accused were enlarged on bail and the case has been registered on 19.07.2011 and the investigation is considerably over. He would cull out the portion of F.I.R. and submit that two complaints were obtained by the investigation agency from the defacto complainant and the first complaint has been signed by the defacto complainant and her husband viz., Sivanandi. He would further submit that in the latest complaint, the averment would show that the defacto complainant has not personally aware of the criminal intimidation made by the accused. He would further submit that the defacto complainant was indebted with TIIC and to discharge the loan, she executed a power of attorney in favour of A-11/Nareshkumar and since, he has not paid the balance amount, she cancelled the same and written letters to him. Even though, A-11/Nareshkumar has not paid the amount and got sale deed executed, after the cancellation of power of attorney, he has given a complaint before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Madurai District. 5.The learned senior counsel would further submit that when they approached defacto complainant, the defacto complainant approached A10/Manickam, who is the Tahsildar and the close relative of the defacto complainant and then only, the other accused have come into the picture and then only, they have stated that they will look after the Nareshkumar's matter. But, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that after negotiation, the price was fixed and after discharging the amount due to A-11/Nareshkumar, Rs.50 lakhs to be paid to the defacto complainant, but as per the version of the defacto complainant, only Rs.40 lakhs has been paid and the remaining Rs.10 lakhs is yet to be paid. He would further Submit that since, it in only a non payment of the sale consideration and inadequate consideration, the ingredients of penal provisions are not made out. He would further submit that all the particulars are borned by records and these petitioners were arrested on 19.07.2011 and they are in custody for more than three weeks and hence, he prayed for the enlargement of bail to the petitioners. 6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/A10 in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10192 of 2011 would submit that the petitioner/A10 is nothing to do with the commission of offence. He would further submit that the defacto complainant and her husband were the ex- government servants and they are worldly wise persons and they were unable to repay the debt, initially, they executed a power of attorney with one Nareshkumar/A-11 through the sister's son of defacto complainant viz., Mohan/A12 and since the transaction has been failed, she approached A10/Manickam/the petitioner in Crl.O.P. (MD) No.10192 of 2011, who has helped her and he has not made any criminal intimidation. 7.He would further submit when some of the accused inspected the property, A10/Manickam has also inspected the property and they fixed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ a sale price. A-10 has never attended the execution of power of attorney and he has nothing to do with the commission of offence and now apprehends arrest and hence, he prayed for the enlargement of anticipatory bail. 8.Repudiating the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that since the defacto complainant was indebted with TIIC, to discharge the loan, she executed a power of attorney with A11/Nareshkumar and since, he has not paid the balance amount and got the sale deed executed, she cancelled the same after two years i.e. in the year of 2009. He would further submit that A-11/Nareshkumar has not given any complaint before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Madurai. The defacto complainant was taken to A1 by A10 through A2. Panchayat has been held at A4's residence and at that time, she was forced to execute the power of attorney under the threat by giving complaint by A-11/Nareshkumar and also A5 will do away with their life and hence, she executed the power deed in favour of A6/Krishnasamy. 9.He would further submit that at that time of negotiation, the defacto complainant fixed rate for the property as Rs.1 lakh per cent and it was stated that in addition to settle the amount to A- 11/Nareshkumar and they will agree to npay Rs.50 lakhs only, but paid only Rs.40 lakhs. He would further submit that even though A9/Rengaraju, has been purchased the property, since he is the relative of A1/Thalapathi, A1/Thalapathi is an ultimate beneficiary of the property. Even though the defacto complainant was forced to agree for Rs.50 lakhs, they paid only Rs.40 lakhs. He would further submit that A10/Manickam has introduced the defacto complainant to A1/Thalapathi through A2/Murali and A10/Manickam was taking active part in inspecting the property along with A1 and other co-accused. He would further submit that except A-10, all other accused are political influenced persons and A-11/Nareshmumar has not given any complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Madurai immediately and the investigation is in initial stage and and the investigation agency want to collect the documents from the department and hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the applications. 10.I have considered the submissions made by all the counsel and perused the materials available on record. 11.Considering the rival submissions, it is true that the defacto complainant is the owner of the property and she was working as Physical Education Teacher and her husband was working as Processing Master in Co-operative Society and they have voluntarily retired from service and while they were running the textile processing unit, they obtained loan from TIIC and since, they were unable to repay the loan amount, the defacto complainant's sister's son viz., Mohan/A12 approached A-11/Nareshkumar for negotiation and the defacto complainant executed a power of attorney in favour of A- 11/Nareshkumar in the year 2007, after payment. Since A- 11/Nareshkumar has not paid the balance amount and got the sale deed executed, the defacto complainant has cancelled the power of attorney executed in favour of A11 and sent letters to him, as per the version of the counsel for the petitioners, after receipt of the letters, A- 11/Nareshkumar approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Madurai and gave a complaint and then only, the defacto complainant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ approached A10/Manickam, who is her relative and A10/Manickam has introduced the defacto complainant to A1/Thalapathi through A2/Murali, who is an advocate. 12.As per the version in the F.I.R., the defacto complainant demanded Rs.1 lakh per cent and it was stated that after the settlement of A11-Nareshkumar, she agreed to receive Rs.50 lakhs. Thereafter, she has executed the power of attorney in favour of A6/Krishnasamy and she was paid only Rs.40 lakhs and the remaining Rs.10 lakhs has not been paid. But, in the averment, it was stated that they were made criminal intimidation on three stages. The power of attorney has been executed on 05.04.2010 and the sale deed has been executed on 24.09.2010 and the complaint has been given only on 14.07.2011. Since the petitioners are worldly wise persons and they are ex- government servants, even though they executed the power of attorney on 05.04.2010, till 13.07.2011, she has not taken any legal action against these persons. 13.In such circumstances, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/A1, A3 and A8 would submit that the ingredients of Section 420 I.P.C. has not been made out Now, because of the raising price, she wants to take advantage, she has come forward with the complaint. Furthermore, since the case is based on documents, all the documents are registered documents and they are available at government departments. Since the petitioners/A1, A3 and A8 were arrested on 19.07.2011 and they are in custody for more than 3 weeks, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioners/A1,A3 and A8, with certain conditions. 14.As far as the petitioner/A10 in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10192 of 2011 is concerned, he is the relative of the defacto complainant and he has introduced the defacto complainant to A1 through A2 to help her to get away from the problem between herself and A-11/Nareshkumar. The defacto complainant herself has approached A10/Manickam for help and then only, he introduced the defacto complainant to A1 through A2, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/10, with certain conditions. 15. Accordingly, the petitioners/A1, A3 and A8 in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10042 of 2011 are ordered to be released on bail on executing a 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 No1, Madurai and on further condition that the petitioners/A1,A3 and A8 shall report before the Court concerned daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. 16.Accordingly, the petitioner/A10 in Crl.M.P.(MD) No.10192 of 2011 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 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 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. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 17. 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/- 08/08/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.1 MADURAI. 2. -DO- THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI DISTRICT. 3. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. 4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, MADURAI. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, PALAYAMKOTTAI. +2 CCs to M/S. S. MOHANKUMAR Advocate SR.No.26535 +1 CC to M/S. K.VELUCHAMY Advocate SR.No.26534 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.10042 of 2011 & 10192 of 2011 Date :08/08/2011 NSV/9.8.11/5P/9C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/