1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Eighth day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms. Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.11865 of 2011 SUDALAIMUTHU ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.1 Vs THE STATE REPRESENTED BY, INSPECTOR OF POLICE PERUMALPURAM POLICE STATION TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT CR.NO.396/2011 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : MR.V.KATHIRVELU, Senior Counsel for M/S.S. RAGAVENTHRE 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 406, 420, 467, 468, 294(b) and 506(i) of I.P.C. and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Charging of Exorbitant Interest Ordinance Act, 2003, in Crime No.396 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is a retired Government Servant and in the year 2006, he has borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the petitioner's father. The defacto complainant has paid a sum of Rs.3,90,000/- as an interest. The petitioner's father has compelled the defacto complainant to execute the power in favour of A1. On 08.05.2000, the defacto complainant has executed the power in favour of A1. In pursuance of that on 30.06.2011, A1 has sold the same to A2. On 29.08.2011, one complaint has been given by the defacto complainant stating that the petitioner was abused the defacto complainant and also made a criminal intimidation. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is arrayed as A1 and a false case has been foisted against the petitioner under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 294(b) and 506(i) of I.P.C. and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Charging of Exorbitant Interest Ordinance Act, 2003,. He further submitted that the alleged occurrence has been taken place in the year 2000 and the complainant has been given on 29.08.2011. There is a delay in preferring the complaint for nearly 10 years and hence, he prays for enlargement on anticipatory bail. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the defacto complainant has borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the petitioner's father and paid a sum of Rs.3,90,000/- as an interest. He further submitted that A1 and A2 have demanded a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from the defacto complainant. He further submitted that the defacto complainant has not paid that amount and under life threat, the defacto complaint has executed the power of attorney in favour of A1 on 08.05.2000 and A1, in turn sold the same to A2. He further submitted that the petitioner and the co-accused have threatened the defacto complainant to vacate the house and hence, a case has been registered against the petitioner. He further submitted that the investigation is an initial stage and hence, he prays for the dismissal of this application. 5. Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and also on perusal of record, it would show that the defacto complainant has borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the father of A1 and he paid a sum of Rs.3,90,000/- as an interest. On perusal of F.I.R., it is seen that the defacto complainant has executed the power of attorney in favour of A1 on 08.05.2000 and on 30.06.2011, A1 in turn sold the same to A2. On 29.08.2011, the defacto complainant has given a complainant, stating that the petitioners herein has gone to the place of the defacto complainant and also made a criminal intimidation. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also considering the fact that the occurrence has been taken place in the year 2000 and the complaint has been given on 29.08.2011 and there is a delay in preferring the complaint and it is only a motivated complainant and therefore, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. 7. 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, Tirunelveli 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. 8. 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/- 08/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, TIRUNELVELI. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 2. THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TIRUNELVELI. 3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PERUMALPURAM POLICE STATION TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT 4. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S.S. RAGAVENTHRE Advocate SR. No.30679 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.11865 of 2011 Date :08/09/2011 RJ/12.9.11 3p/6c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/