1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT (Criminal Jurisdiction) Monday, the Nineteenth day of December Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice K.N. BASHA CRL OP(MD)No.15360 of 2011 1 MUTHUPANDI 2 POOL PANDI 3 MANOJ KUMAR 4 KALYANA SUNDARAM :PETITIONERS / A1, A2, A3 AND A5 -Vs- THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALLIYOOR POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. (CR.NO.597 OF 2011) :RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. R.ANAND, Advocate For Respondent : MR.C.RAMESH, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 Cr.P.C. ORDER:The Court Made the following order:- The petitioners, who have been arrayed as A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-5 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences under Sections 468, 471, 420 and 506 (ii) IPC in Crime No.597 of 2011 and seek anticipatory bail. 2.It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the allegation as per the de-facto complainant is to the effect that the first petitioner/A-1 is said to have fabricated a mortgage deed and executed the same in favour of the fourth petitioner/A-5 and the second and third petitioners are the attestors to the said document. He further submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. 3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that the petitioners have been implicated in this case on the allegation that the first petitioner/A-1 is said to have fabricated a mortgage deed and executed the same in favour of the fourth petitioner/A-5 and the second and third petitioners are the attestors to the document. He further submitted that the investigation is pending. 4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5.The fact remains that the main allegation revolving around the alleged fabrication of document of mortgage deed is said to have been done by the first petitioner/A-1 and he has executed the same in favour of the fourth petitioner/A-5 herein. The second and third petitioners are the attestors to the said document. It is seen from the submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the said fabricated document has already been seized and the entire allegations are borne out by records. Considering the above said fact, this Court is of the view that the custodial interrogation in respect of the petitioners is not required and this Court is inclined to grant the relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 6.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, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District, on each of them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned or to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest and on further condition that the petitioners shall appear before the respondent police for a period of four weeks daily at 5.30 p.m. and thereafter they shall be available for interrogation as and when required. sd/- 19/12/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO: 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District. 2.-Do- Thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli. 3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 4.The Inspector of Police, Valliyoor Police Station, Tirunelveli District. +1. CC to M/S. R.ANAND Advocate SR.No.44522. RP/21.12.2011/2P/6C. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.15360 of 2011 Date :19/12/2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/