BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twenty Eighth day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr. Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.14667 of 2011 1 ABUKHAN 2 SAIBUNISHA ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED 1 & 2 Vs THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ENAMKULATHUR POLICE STATION, TRICHY DISTRICT CR.NO. 58 OF 2011 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. A.JOEL PAUL ANTONY Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN, Addl. Public Prosecutor (Crl. Side) For Intervener : M/S. M.R.SREENIVASAN Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 420 and 465 of IPC in Crime No.58 of 2011, on the file of the respondent police. They have approached this Court for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Heard Mr.A.Joel Paul Anton, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.M.R.Sreenivasan, learned counsel appearing for the intervenor and also Mr.K.S.Durai Pandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit in his argument that the letter issued by the Bank would go to show that the de- facto complainant alone has redeemed the pledged jewellery and the petitioners are innocent persons and they did not commit any crime as stated in the complaint. He would submit that they have been falsely implicated in this case. He would also submit that they are also having permanent residence and therefore, he would request for the grant of anticipatory bail. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor would submit in his argument that on an earlier occasion, the Court has referred the matter to the mediation and conciliation centre and the said attempt did not succeed and thereafter, the petitioners has withdrawn the anticipatory bail petition on 03.08.2011 and thereafter, he has filed yet another petition for anticipatory bail. But it was dismissed for default and thereafter, he has filed the present petition for anticipatory bail, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ which is not sustainable. He would further submit in his argument that the the petitioners have manipulated the signature of the de-facto complainant and that redeemed the jewellery belonging to the de-facto complainant. Therefore, he would request this Court to dismiss this petition. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that the investigation is pending and the experts' handwriting opinion is awaited for continuing the investigation. He would further submit in his argument that there may be a requirement of custodial interrogation and therefore, this is not a fit case for anticipatory bail. 6. Considering the submissions made on all the sides, this Court could see that the petitioners have not disclosed about the mediation referral, in their petition. Moreover, the case is in respect of impersonation as well as forging the signature of the de-facto complainant with the Bank where the de-facto complainant has pledged the jewels. 7. In the said circumstances, the investigation is yet to be completed and therefore, I do not find any merits in this Petition. Hence, this Petition is dismissed. sd/- 28/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ENAMKULATHUR POLICE STATION, TRICHY DISTRICT. 2. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. M.R.SREENIVASAN Advocate SR. No.41890 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.14667 of 2011 Date :28/11/2011 RJ/1.12.11 2p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/