1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT (Criminal Jurisdiction) Monday, the Twenty Second day of August Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.PALANIVELU CRL OP(MD) No.10922 of 2011 1 ALAGU JAYABALAN 2 J. SELVARANI :PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NOS.1&2 -Vs- THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SINGAMPUNARI POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT. CRIME NO.175 OF 2011 :RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. T.K.GOPALAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.RAMAR, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. For Intervenor : MR.P.NATARAJAN, ADVOCATE. PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 Cr.P.C. ORDER:The Court Made the following order:- The petitioners/accused Nos.1&2 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 (i) I.P.C. in Crime No.175 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2.It is mentioned in the First Information Report that the first accused got Rupees Three Lakhs and permitted the defacto complainant to quarry granite stones in his land and believing his words, he spent about Rupees Seventy Five lakhs and quarried stones from the land and the same was transported by the lorry belonging to Sundar. On 23.06.2007, the vehicle was intercepted by the Assistant Director of Mines and Minerals Department, Dindigul District and they found that the documents produced by the first accused were forged. Hence, a sum of Rs.7,01,997/- was imposed as fine and the defacto complaint has paid the said sum and got the release of the lorry. It is also stated that both the accused criminally intimidated the defacto complainant. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the occurrence took place on 08.02.2007; that the complaint was lodged on 13.08.2011, after a lapse of four years; that there is no truth in the versions contained in the First Information Report and that there is no question of tampering with the witnesses since the evidence to be relied upon by the prosecution are documentary evidence. 4.Heard Mr.P.Natarajan, learned counsel appearing for the intervener/defacto complainant. He would contend that if anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, they may tamper the witnesses and they may also prevent them from producing material evidence. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would raise objection stating that the investigation is pending and the petitioners may tamper the witnesses. Hence, he prays for the dismissal of this application. Heard all the parties. 7.When the occurrence is alleged to have been taken place on 08.02.2007, the complaint was lodged only on 13.08.2011. In view of this court, the First Information Report does not contain the reasons for inordinate delay. But, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that both the petitioners criminally intimidated the defacto complaint that their Government is in power and they would kill them if they preferred complaint, which shows that the petitioners had got influence during the earlier regime. It is stated that the defacto complainant paid the above said fine amount and the copy of the bill issued by the Treasury, Dindigul has been produced showing that the lorry owner, Sundar has paid the fine amount. 8.In the considered view of this Court and in the circumstances available in this case since the investigation has to be taken up on the basis of the records, there could be no question of tampering of witnesses by the petitioners. Hence, they are entitled to get the anticipatory bail with certain conditions. 9.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.1, Sivagangai and each of them shall execute 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.1, Sivagangai and on further condition that the petitioners shall report before the Court concerned daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C scrupulously. 10.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, anticipatory bail petition stands dismissed. sd/- 22/08/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO: 1.The Judicial Magistrate No:I, Sivagangai. 2.-Do- Thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivagangai. 3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 4.The Inspector of Police, Singampunari Police Station, Sivagangai District. +1. CC to M/S. T.K.GOPALAN Advocate SR.No.28486. +1CC TO MR.P.NATARAJAN, ADVOCATE.SR.NO.28448. RP/24.08.2011/2p/7c. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.10922 of 2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/