BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Twenty Second day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.15002 of 2011 PARAMESHWARI ... PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.1 Vs STATE REP.BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRUNAGAR POLICE STATION MADURAI DISTRICT CR NO. 475/2011, ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. T.K.GOPALAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN, Addl.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 commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 506(i), 420 and 406 I.P.C. and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.Heard Mr.T.K.Gopalan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.S.Durai Pandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.side) appearing for the State. 3.According to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ranked as A1 on a complaint given by the de-facto complainant as if the petitioner along with other accused persons had abused the de-facto complainant and had threatened him with dire consequences without handing over the possession of the house property to which the petitioner had executed a sale deed in favour of the de-facto complainant. He would further submit in his argument that the de-facto complainant is actually a money lender and for lending of money, he got the sale deed in his favour with the condition to permit the petitioner to being the possession of the said property and to repay the money and on such repayment, he would execute the sale deed or cancellation of the sale deed already executed by the petitioner in his favour as the case may be. He would further submit in his argument that the de-facto complainant had suppressed all these facts, had given a complaint in order to snatch away the property belonging to the petitioner. He would further submit that the dispute in between the petitioner and the de-facto complainant is purely as a civil dispute and therefore, the petitioner has got a prima facie case for being considered for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ anticipatory bail and She would abide any condition likely to be imposed by this Court. 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.side) would submit in his argument that after execution of the sale deed the petitioner did not hand over the possession of the house property and also indulged with the rowdy elements abused and had threatened the de-facto complainant with dire consequences. He would further submit in his argument that the investigation is pending and the acquisition against the petitioner is a serious one. He would request the Court to dismiss the anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner. 5.The case of the de-facto complainant was that the petitioner has executed a sale deed in favour of the de-facto complainant on 27.09.2010, and she permitted the petitioner and other accused to continue the possession of the house for two months and thereafter, they have refused to vacate the same. Further accusation is that the petitioner had abused and threatened the de-facto complainant with the help of rowdy elements. However, on perusal of the agreement said to have been reached in between the petitioner and the de-facto complainant which is produced in page No.15 of the typed set of papers, dated 23.09.2010, would show that the sale deed was executed by the petitioner for the purpose of borrowing a sum of Rs.30 lakhs and it was further agreed in between both parties that the possession of the said property should continue with the petitioner herself and the said possession would not be disturbed by the de-facto complainant or his legal representatives or agents or any person. Having agreed to such compromise, the complaint given by the de-facto complainant is contrary to the said terms. The investigation is still pending so as to find out the truth and genuineness of the said agreement as well as the binding nature of the stipulation against the petitioner. Therefore, I could see that a prima facie case for the petitioner to get anticipatory bail and this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai 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 Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 6.The petitioner shall appear before the Magistrate concerned within a period of 15 days, failing which, the anticipatory bail granted shall stand automatically cancelled. Sd/- 22/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.VI MADURAI 2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRUNAGAR POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT 3 THE ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI +1. CC to M/S. T.K.GOPALAN Advocate SR.No.40930 ssk/24.11.2011 /5c -3p/- ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.15002 of 2011 Date :22/11/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/