BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Seventh day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms. Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.11774 of 2011 MANIKANDAN ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.3 Vs THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT CR.NO.21/2011 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. R. BOOMIRAJAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.RAMAR, Additional 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 offences punishable under Sections 468 and 420 I.P.C in Crime No.21 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is only a bonafide purchaser of property from A1 and A2, who are the owners. He would further submit that the occurrence has been taken place on 21.03.2011 and a complaint has been given on 09.08.2011, stating that the de-facto complainant is the owner of the property. He would further submit that A1 & A2 were already enlarged on anticipatory bail and hence, he prays for enlargement on anticipatory bail. 3.Refuting the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.Side) would submit that the property owned by the de-facto complainant and A1 & A2 have fabricated the sale deed in favour of A3 as if they are the owners of the property since the patta has been stands in the name of ancestors of A1 and A2 and the investigation is going on. He would further submit that A1 and A2 were already enlarged on anticipatory bail and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application. 4.Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and also considering the fact that A1 and A2 have executed the sale deed stating that which is the ancestors property, patta stands in the name of ancestors of A1 and A2 and the de-facto complainant claim that he is the owner of the property but A3 only is the bonafide purchaser of property from A1 and A2 and A1 & A2 were already enlarged on anticipatory bail and the investigation is considerably over, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sivagangai and on 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 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. 5. 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/- 07/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, SIVAGANGAI. 2. THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SIVAGANGAI. 3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT 4. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. R. BOOMIRAJAN Advocate SR. No.30325 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.11774 of 2011 Date :07/09/2011 RJ/9.9.11 2p/6c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/