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.11387 of 2011 1. MUTHUKUMAR 2. SUBRAMANIAN : PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2 Vs. THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT. CR.NO.24/2011 : RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. R.SENTHILKUMAR Advocate For Respondent : Mr. A.RAMAR Additional Public Prosecutor 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 Section 420 I.P.C. in Crime No.24 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that A1 is the son of A2 and the property was owned by the grandfather of A1 he has executed a Settlement Deed dated 25.06.1999 in favour of A1. But the daugther- in- law/de-facto complainant filed a suit for partition and the same was dismissed. Then, she gave a complaint on 13.08.2011 and the case has been registered under Section 420 IPC. The petitioners apprehend arrest and they filed a copy of the judgment in the partition suit filed by the de-facto complainant which was dismissed and she was not given 1/2 share in the property but the false case has been registered against them and hence, they pray for enlargement on anticipatory bail. 3. Refuting the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.Side) would submit that in the suit a compromise decree was passed in that 1/2 share was given to the de-facto complainant but the petitioners herein have not handed over the same. After the death of the husband of the de-facto complainant, A1 and A2 have taken steps to change the patta in their name, hence complaint was given, the investigation is going on and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application. 4. Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and the facts that originally the property belongs to Kannapa Konar, he https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ executed a Settlement Deed in favour of the first petitioner/A1, the second petitioner is the father of A1; the de-facto complainant is none other than the daughter-in-law of Kannappa Konar; the de-facto complainant is having child and she filed O.S.No.51 of 2004 against Kannappa Konar, who is father-in-law and the first accused for partition and the same was dismissed on 22.01.2007; the complaint has been given on 13.08.2011 stating that on 07.11.2002 there was a compromise between both the parties in which the de-facto complainant was granted 1/2 share in the property, the suit has been dismissed only on 07.11.2008, as per the documents the first petitioner is the owner of the property; the dispute is civil in nature; the petitioners are falsely implicated in this case and even though the petitioners were not arrested, they neither interfered with the investigation nor absconded from the jurisdiction, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. 5. 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, Sivagangai, and each of them 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 concerned 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. 6. 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, 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, SIVAGANGAI. 2. -DO- THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT. 3. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. 4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT. +1 CC to M/S. R.SENTHILKUMAR Advocate SR.No.30520 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.11387 of 2011 Date :08/09/2011 NSV/13.9.11/2P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/