BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Twenty Fifth day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.14946 of 2011 1. N. SATHIYAMOORTHY 2. S. BALADHANDAYUTHAM 3. JANSIRANI ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, PUDUKKOTTAI, IN CRIME NO.*46 OF 2011, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.N.RAVISHANKAR VALLATHARASU Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners/A1 to A3 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Section *406, 418, 420, 506(i) of IPC in Crime No.*46 of 2011, on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Heard Mr.N.Ravishankar Vallatharasu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.K.S.Duraipandian learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the state. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the petitioner as against the petitioners 2 and 3 and he has also made an endorsement to that effect. In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners 2 and 3 this petition is dismissed as withdrawn against the petitioners 2 and 3. 4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the 1st petitioner, the petitioner is stated to have threatened the defacto complainant when he is seeking for execution of sale deed in accordance with the agreement entered into between them or to return back Rs.10 lakhs. He would further submit that the sale agreement entered into between the parties with an advance payment of Rs.10 lakhs, is purely a civil dispute and if the defacto complainant is aggrieved on the petitioner in non execution of the sale deed in pursuance of the sale agreement, it is for him to proceed for specific performance suit as per law. He would further submit that he has no intention to cheat the defacto complainant nor threaten the defacto complainant. He has got permanent route in the town and society and he is ready to abide any condition and therefore he would request the Court to grant anticipatory bail to the 1st petitioner. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that the 1st petitioner has not only refused to execute the sale deed on the basis of the sale agreement, but also has threatened when the execution of sale deed was demanded by the defacto complainant. He would further submit that the investigation is pending and if for any reason this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to suitable conditions may be imposed. 6. As regards to the plea of anticipatory bail of the 1st petitioner, I could see that he has entered with a sale agreement in respect of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ said property after receiving a sum of Rs.10 lakhs from the defacto complainant. The further complaint of the defacto complainant is that the 1st petitioner neither executed the sale deed in pursuance of the sale agreement nor returned the amount. When the complainant demanded for execution of sale deed in pursuance of the sale agreement. So there is purely a civil dispute but if there is any criminality attached to it, could be evidenced only at the time of conclusion of the investigation and therefore, I could see a prima facie case for grant of anticipatory bail to A1. 7. Accordingly, the 1st petitioner is directed to be released on bail in the event of his arrest or on his appearance before the Judicial Magistrate Alangudi Pudukkottai District 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 Judicial Magistrate Alangudi and on further condition that the 1st petitioner should appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 am, for a period of two weeks. The 1st petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under section 438 Cr.P.c Scrupulously. 8. The 1st 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/- 25/11/2011 *(Amended & Time extended as per the orders of Hon'ble Court made in MP(MD)No.1/11 in Crl.OP(MD).No.14946/11 vide its order dated 23.12.2011 by VPKJ) (The Time already granted for the petitioner to surrender in extended for a further period of Fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.) / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO *(To be substituted corrected order already despatched) 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,ALANGUDI. 2. THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT 3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, PUDUKKOTTAI, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT. 4. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S.N.RAVISHANKAR VALLATHARASU Advocate SR.No.45643 GH : 30.11.2011 : 2P/6C SR : 27.12.2011 : 2p/6c ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.14946 of 2011 Date :25/11/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/