1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Fourteenth day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.11484 of 2011 PORKODI ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.2 Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, MADURAI, CR.NO.50/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. S.MAHENDRAPATHY Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.RAMAR, Addl.Public Prosecutor( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 120(b), 406, 420 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. in Crime No.50 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence seeks, anticipatory bail. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the wife of A1 and the accused 1 and 4 are the partners of the real estate business and the defacto complainant is the owner of the property. He further submitted that A1 and A2 got the power of attorney from the defacto complainant and sold the same to A3 with the help of A4 and after getting of Rs.5 lakhs only, the defacto complainant has executed the power of attorney to A1 and A2. He further submitted that in the present scenario because of rise in the price, the defacto complainant has demanded more money and since they refused to pay the amount, a false case has been foisted against them. He further submitted that A1 has already been arrested and enlarged on bail and the petitioner is nothing to do with the alleged commission of offence and hence, he prays for enlargement on anticipatory bail. 3. Refuting the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the defacto complainant is the owner of the property and after receiving a sum of Rs.2,10,000/- from A1 and A2 as loan, the defacto complainant has executed the power of attorney in favour of A1 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 and A2, however, the defacto complainant did not know, who is the real creditor. He further submitted that A1 and A2 have sold the same to A3, who is the brother of A2. He further submitted that the investigation is going on and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application. 4. Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and also considering the fact that after receiving a sum of Rs.2,10,000 from A1 and A2, the defacto complainant has executed the power of attorney to A1 and A2 and they sold the same to A3, who is none other than the brother of A2 and the occurrence has been taken place on 17.02.2010, but the complaint has been given only on 22.08.2011 and there is a delay in preferring the complaint, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, with certain conditions. 5. Accordingly, the petitioner 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 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. 6. 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/- 14/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I,MADURAI. 2 DO-THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,MADURAI. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH,MADURAI. 4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1 CC to M/S. S.MAHENDRAPATHY Advocate SR.No.31370 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.11484 of 2011 PA/19.09.2011/2P/6C Date :14/09/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/