BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twenty Eighth day of December Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S. RAJESWARAN CRL OP(MD) No.17391 of 2011 1 S.C.PANDIAN 2 P.GANESH ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.8&9 Vs STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CITY CRIME BRANCH, TIRUNELVELI CITY, CRIME NO.67/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. T.A.EBENEZER Advocate For Respondent : Mr.C.RAMESH, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) 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 120(B), 420, 468 and 471 of IPC in Crime No.67 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.T.A.Ebenezer, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.C.Ramesh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3. The case of the petitioners is that they have purchased the property from A-1 to A-5 as a bona fide purchaser, who claimed themselves to be the legal heirs of the owner of the property . But they suppressed the fact that their father had already sold the property to the de-facto complainant through A- 6 and A-7. It is also represented that the civil suit is already pending between the de-facto complainant and the accused Nos. 1 to 5 in O.S.No. 512 of 2010 before the District Munsiff, Tirunelveli. Therefore, these persons are not aware of anything which happened before their purchase. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent purchasers and they did not committed any crime as stated in the complaint. He would submit that they have been falsely implicated in this case. He would https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ also submit that they are also having permanent residence and therefore, he would request for the grant of anticipatory bail. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that due to property dispute, the petitioners have been implicated. He would further submit that the investigation is pending and if for any reason, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners, suitable conditions may be passed for the secured presence of the petitioners. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that these petitioners are the bona fide purchaser, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, of course, subject to certain stringent conditions. 7. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the Judicial Magistrate concerned on executing 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 No.I, Tirunelveli, and on further condition that the petitioners shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders for the purpose of interrogation. 8. The petitioners shall appear before the Magistrate concerned within a period of 15 days, failing which, the anticipatory bail granted shall stand automatically cancelled. sd/- 28/12/2011 / TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, TIRUNELVELI 2. DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT 3.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 4.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CITY CRIME BRANCH, TIRUNELVELI CITY +1. CC to M/S. T.A.EBENEZER Advocate SR.No.46176 rl/6c – 29.12.2011 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.17391 of 2011 Date :28/12/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/