BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Fourth day of August Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) Nos.8114 and 8872 of 2011 1 M.MURALI @ SIVASAKTHI ARUNAGIRI 2 M.SUMATHI 3 M.MADHAVAN 4 M.NALLATHAMBI @ THANKAM 5 D.MUTHURAMAN ..PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 6 in Crl.OP(MD)No.8114 of 2011 M.SENTHIL KUMAR ..PETITIONER/3rd ACCUSED in Crl.OP(MD)No.8872 of 2011 Vs. THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, TUTICORIN DISTRICT. CRIME NO.27 OF 2011. ..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT in Both the Petitions G.MUNIRATNAM ..Intervener/Defacto-Complainant in Crl.OP(MD)No.8872 of 2011 For Petitioners in Both the Petitions : M/S.S.C.HEROLD SINGH Advocate For Respondent in Both the Petitions : MR.A.RAMAR, Additional Public Prosecutor For Internver in Crl.OP(MD)No.8872 of 2011 : MR.K.SELVAKUMARASWAMI, Advocate PETITIONS FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners/A1 to A6 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 471, in Crime No.27 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that a case has been registered in crime No.27 of 2011 by the respondent police for the offence under Sections 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. against six named persons and the 1st accused is the power agent of the defacto complainant. The power deed has been cancelled only on 27.05.2011. Before the cancellation of the power deed, on the basis of the power of attorney dated 15.07.2010, she alienate the property https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in favour of A2 to A6 and they are innocent. Now a false case has been foisted against them and they are apprehended for arrest and hence, he prayed for the enlargement of the anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor would submit that the defacto complainant has purchased the property on 03.03.2004 and he executed a power of attorney in favour of A1 on 15.07.2010 and he cancelled the same under telegram dated 26.10.2010 and executed a settlement Deed in favour of his daughter on 25.10.2010 and he issued a legal notice to the power agent on 26.10.2010 and public notice has also been published in 'Malai Murasu' on 15.12.2010. 4.He would further submit that A1, after coming to the knowledge about the cancellation of the power, had executed the sale deeds on 18.05.2011 and 23.05.2011 and now the petitioner herein, after knowing fully well the cancellation of power deed, wantonly executed the sale deeds and the property is worth about Rs.1 crore and if the petitioners are enlarged on anticipatory bail, they will abscond from the jurisdiction and the petitioners' appearance is necessary for the interrogation and hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the anticipatory bail petition. 5.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit that perusal of the F.I.R. would show that after the cancellation of power and execution of settlement deed in favour of the defaco complainant's daughter, notice has been issued and that has been published in the 'Malai Murasu' newspaper and then only, the sale deed has been executed and they attempted to interfere with the possession and the investigation is also going on and if the accused are enlarged on bail, the respondent will not able to interrogate the matter and the petitioners are wanted for interrogation and hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the anticipatory bail application. 6.I have heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 7.Considering the rival submissions made on either side and the documents produced before this Court, the defacto complainant is the owner of the property and he purchased the property on 03.03.2004. Admittedly, the 1st accused was appointed as power agent as per the registered document dated 15.07.2010 by the defacto complainant. Immediately, he executed the sale deed on 26.07.2010 and the defacto complainant himself has executed the settlement deed in favour of his daughter on 25.10.2010 and he sent a telegram, cancelling the power deed on 26.10.2010 and issued a legal notice on the same day and acknowledgement card has also been received by the defacto complainant. Hence, it is clear that A1, who is the power agent of the defacto complainant is having the knowledge about the cancellation of the power deed executed in her favour and the paper publication has also been effected on 15.12.2010, wherein, it has been stated that if any third party is dealing with the same with persons without any legal authority will be doing so only at their risk and cost without binding the lawful owner in whatsoever in the eye of law. Even though, the defacto complainant has given a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ complaint on 09.05.2011, the sale deed has been executed by A2 in favour of A3, A5 and A6 on 18.05.2011 and executed another deed in favour of his son Madhavan and daughter Nagajothi on 23.05.2011, which would show that without any authority, after cancellation of the power deed and after preferring the complaint, A1 has executed the sale deed in favour of his son and daughter and her relatives. Hence, it is clear that they have fabricated the documents to grab the property of the lawful owner. On the date of execution of the sale deed, the power in favour of the A1 has been cancelled. 8.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that A1, after the cancellation of the power deed, had executed the sale deeds and hence, the petitioners' presence is needed for interrogation. Hence, I am of the view that if the petitioners are enlarged on anticipatory bail, they will tamper the witnesses and abscond from the jurisdiction and therefore, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners and the petitioner deserved to be dismissed. 9.Accordingly, these criminal original petitions are dismissed. sd/- 04/08/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. 2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, TUTICORIN DISTRICT. +1. CC to M/S.S.C.HEROLD SINGH Advocate SR.No.26348 akm/08.08.11 /3p-4c/ ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) Nos.8114 and 8872 of 2011 Date :04/08/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/