BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Fourth day of August Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.9377 of 2011 1. CHANDRA SEKAR 2. PANDIARAJ 3. MANIVANNAN ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED (Rank not known) Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH (LAND GRABBING PREVENTION WING), VIRUDHUNAGAR, VIRUDHUNAGAR DT, CRIME NO.24/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. R.ANAND Advocate For Respondent : A.RAMAR, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465 and 471 of IPC in Crime No.24 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence seek anticipatory bail. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that a false case has been registered against the petitioners under Sections 419, 420, 465 and 471 of IPC. He further submitted that the property is belonging to the defacto complainant however, A1 has fabricated the power of attorney in favour of A3 and A3 in turn sole the same to A4 to A8. He would further submit that at the time executing the power of attorney, the petitioners are present and they have nothing to do with the alleged offence. However, A4 to A8 have executed the sale deed document in favour of the defacto complainant and hence, he prays for enlargement on anticipatory bail. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that A1 has fabricated the power of attorney in favour of A3 and A3 in turn sold the same to A4 to A8 and the petitioners are the attester of the power of attorney. He would further submit that the investigation is going on and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application. 4. Considering the rival submissions made by both sides as well as the document filed before this Court even though, the defacto complainant is the owner of the property and A1 has fabricated the power of attorney in favour of A3 and A3 has sold the same to A4 to A8 and the petitioners are only the attester of the power of attorney. Now A4 to A8 has executed the sale revocation deed on 01.08.2011 and the document is yet to be registered. In such circumstances I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, with certain conditions. 5. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District and on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ executing a 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 Magistrate concerned and the petitioners must produce the certified copy of the sale revocation deed before the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioners shall report before the court concerned daily at 10.30 am., 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, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed. sd/- 04/08/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II, VIRUDHUNAGAR, 2. THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VIRUDHUNAGAR 3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH (LAND GRABBING PREVENTION WING), VIRUDHUNAGAR, VIRUDHUNAGAR DT, 4. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI +1. CC to M/S. R.ANAND Advocate SR.No.26344 GH : 09.08.2011 : 2p/6c ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.9377 of 2011 Date :04/08/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/