BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Fifth day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) Nos.11604 and 11607 of 2011 K. SEKAR ..PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 in Crl.OP(MD)No.11604 of 2011 D.ARUNAGIRI D.SARAVANAN ..PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 & 3 in Crl.OP(MD)No.11607 of 2011 Vs. STATE REP.BY THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE VADAMADURAI POLICE STATION, VADAMADURAI, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. CRIME NO.357/2011 ..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT in Both the Petitions For Petitioner in Crl.OP(MD)No.11604 of 2011 : MR. S.THIRUPATHI Advocate For Petitioners in Crl.OP(MD)No.11607 of 2011 : MR. B.SARAVANAN, Advocate For Respondent in Both the Petitions : MR.A.RAMAR, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITIONS FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners/Accused No.1, 2 and 3 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 417, 419, 420, 294(b) and 506(2) of I.P.C. in Crime No.357 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the defacto complainant is owner of the property to an extent of 1 acre 53 cents and the defacto complainant entered into sale agreement with A1. Since the defacto complainant has not executed the sale deed, A1 filed O.S. No. 208 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court,Vedasandur seeking for the relief of specific performance and the said suit was decreed on 7.9.2007 and subsequently in Execution https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Proceedings, a sale deed was executed in favour of A1 and he sold the property in favour of A2 on 12.8.2008 and A2 is none other than the brother of A3 and A2 executed the sale deed in favour of A3 and in turn, A3 settled the property in favour of his children on 17.12.2009. After that, the defacto complainant gave a complaint before the District Crime Branch and summons were issued and after enquiry, the complaint was closed as it is a civil dispute. Then, the defacto complainant is invoking Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and the case has been registered and hence, the petitioners apprehend for arrest and they come forward with application and hence, they prays for enlargement on anticipatory bail. 3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.Side) submits that the property is belonging to the defacto complainant and A1 has created a forged sale agreement as if he has received Rs.80,000/- as sale consideration and he sold the same in favour of A2 and A2 in turn settled the property in favour of A3, who is the brother of A2 and investigation is in initial stage. He fairly conceded that the case has been registered after the complaint has been forwarded under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C and he prays for dismissal of this application. 4. Considering the rival submissions made by both sides, admittedly, the property is owned by the defacto complainant and A1 has filed O.S.No.208 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif court, Vedasandur for specific performance stating that the defacto complainant has himself executed the sale agreement with him and in that suit, ex-parte decree has been passed and the sale deed has been executed by court of law on 29.7.2008. But the defacto complainant has not taken any part after he sold the property in favour of A2 on 12.8.2008 but A2 has settled the property in favour of his brother (A3) on 18.11.2009 and A3 in turn, settled the property in favour of his children on 17.12.2009 as per the document No.5, which shows that now only the defacto complainant has filed I.A.No.297 of 2010 under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree which is pending. Considering the same, it is only a civil dispute and the case has been registered on 29.8.2011 and the first accused has purchased the property through court of law, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vedasanthur, and each of them 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 petitioners shall report before the Court concerned daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously. 6.The petitioners 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/- 05/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VEDASANTHUR. 2 -Do-Thro' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE DINDIGUL. 3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. 4 THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE VADAMADURAI POLICE STATION, VADAMADURAI, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. +1. CC to M/S. S.THIRUPATHI Advocate SR.No.29872 +1. CC to M/S. B.SARAVANAN Advocate SR.No.29873 akm/07.09.11 /2p-7c/ ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) Nos.11604 and 11607 of 2011 Date :05/09/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/