BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT (Criminal Jurisdiction) Wednesday, the Seventh day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.11638 of 2011 1 S. UDAYAKUMAR 2 SUGANTHI :PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NOS. 1 & 2 -Vs- THE STATE REP. BY 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, LAND GRABBING PREVENTION SPECIAL CELL, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT. CRIME NO.NOT KNOWN OF 2011 2 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT, THOOTHUKUDI. :RESPONDENTS / COMPLAINANTS For Petitioner : M/S. N.DILIP KUMAR Advocate For Respondent : A.RAMAR, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 420 I.P.C., in Crime No.45 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are the husband and wife and the first petitioner is the owner of the property to the extent of 9.94 acres. He executed a power of Attorney in favour of one Jeyapandiyan on 11.02.2006. However, he cancelled the power of attorney on 13.02.2006 and also issued a legal notice to the said Jeyapandian for revoking the power of attorney and also paper publication has been made by the petitioner on 14.02.2006 and the first petitioner/Al has settled the property in favour of the second petitioner/A2 on 07.09.2010. After the cancellation of power of attorney, Jeyapandian has executed the sale deed in favour of his son-in-law viz, Mohan. Thereafter on 02.10.2010, Mohan had executed the sale deed in favour of one Mr.Prince Rozari Arulanantham and his brother Igenes Antony Kumar. 3. He further submitted that the said Prince Rozari Arulanantham has been preferred a complaint against the petitioners and two others and the same has been registered in Crime No.33 of 2011 under Sections 468, 471 and 420 I.P.C. In that the first petitioner herein was enlarged on bail and the second petitioners and two others were granted anticipatory bail. The present complaint has been preferred by the borther of the Prince Rozari Arulanantham viz. Igenes Antony Kumar and hence, he prays for enlargement on anticipatory bail. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that on the basis of the complaint given by the defacto complainant no case has been registered only petition enquiry is pending. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the copy of the F.I.R. in Crime No.45 of 2011. 5. Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and also on perusal of F.I.R. as well as the documents filed by the petitioner, it is seen that the first petitioner is the owner of the property and he has executed the power of attorney in favour of one Jeyapandian. However, that has been cancelled by way of issuing a legal notice and also made a paper publication in "Thinamalar, Tirunelveli Edision" on 14.02.2006 and the first petitioner/Al has settled the property in favour of the second petitioner/A2 on 07.09.2010. After that the said Jeyapandian has executed the sale deed in favour of his son-in-law, Mohan on 06.06.2006, who in turn has executed the sale deed in favour of the defacto complainant and his brother. The brother of the defacto complainant has given a false complaint against the petitioners and two others and the same has been registered in Crime No.33 of 2011, where the petitioners were enlarged on bail and anticipatory bail respectively. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also considering the fact that already the power of attorney has been cancelled on 13.02.2006, which was properly communicated by way of paper publication, however, after the cancellation of the power of attorney, the vendor of the defacto complainant has executed the sale deed in favour of the defacto complainant and the matter is civil in nature, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, with certain conditions. 7. 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.I, Thoothukudi and on executing a separate 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 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. 8. The petitioners shall appear before the learned Magistrate concerned 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/- 07/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO: 1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO:I, THOOTHUKUDI. 2.-DO- THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THOOTHUKUDI. 3.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, LAND GRABBING PREVENTION SPECIAL CELL, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT, CRIME NO.NOT KNOWN OF 2011 4.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT, THOOTHUKUDI. 5.THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. N.DILIP KUMAR Advocate SR.No.30577. RP/09.09.11/2P/7C. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.11638 of 2011 Date :07/09/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/