BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twenty Ninth day of August Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms. Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.11148 of 2011 1 P.K.GUNAVATHI 2 P.K.BANUMATHI 3 P.S.SUSHEELA 4 P.S.SUBRAMANIAN 5 P.S.SRINIVASAN 6 D.S.DEVIKA 7 P.S.SHANTI 8 N.R.CHITRA 9 P.S.NIRMALA ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED 1 TO 9 Vs STATE THRO' THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, MADURAI CITY. CRIME NO.69 OF 2011 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. T.K.GOPALAN 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 petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 9 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420,427,447,468,471,506(ii) read with Section 120(b) IPC in Crime No.69 of 2011 on the file of the respondent and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are arrayed as A1 to A9; that originally, the property belongs to Chinna Kuppusamay who is having three sons namely Subbiah, Sundararamaiyar and Rengasamy that Sundararamaiyar is having three sons namely Kuppusamy, Santhamoorthy and Rajalu and the parties are legal heirs of Sundararamaiyar; that on the basis of complaint given by one Murugan, the case has been registered against the petitioners stating that Murugan himself purchased the property from the heirs of another son of Kuppusamy, namely Rengasamy. He further submits that Rengasamy executed a Will in the year 07.06.1993 and in the year 1993, he himself stated that he is entitled to 1/2 share of present Survey No.70/1 in total extent of 1 Acre 9 Cents. He further submits that he has taken Encumbrance Certificate and it shows that Murugan has not purchased the property and also he produced the Encumbrance Certificate and without any right, the complainant herein has come forward with the complaint because of present scenario but the petitioners are the real owners and now apprehending arrest and hence, they pray for enlargement on anticipatory bail. 3.Refuting the same the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.Side) submits that one Murugan has purchased the property from one Kumaresan who is the son of Rengasamy, but the petitioners herein have https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ entered into a power deed in favour of A2 Malaichamy, and hence the case has been registered and the investigation is going on and the property sold in favour of A15 and hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 4.Admittedly, the petitioners 3 to 9, except A10, A.11 to A.14 are descendents of Sundararamaiyer who is son of Chinna Kuppusamy who is the owner of the entire property. As per the Will executed by Rengamsay, he has bequeath only 1/2 share in the said Survey number the de-facto complainant has purchased the property from the heirs of Rengasamy, so he is entitled only 1/2 share in the suit property. Admittedly, as per the document filed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the Encumbrance Certificate has not shown that the de-facto complainant had any transaction with the Kumaresan and heirs of Rengasamy. These petitioners have inherited the property and they executed the power of attorney in favour of A2 who in turn executed a Sale agreement in favour of A.15 and the power of attorney was executed on 28.09.2010 and the complaint was given on 18.08.2011 and it is purely a civil dispute and that though the petitioners were not arrested, they neither interfered with the investigation nor absconded from the jurisdiction. Hence, 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 No.I, Madurai 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 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/- 29/08/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, MADURAI. 2. THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE MADURAI. 3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, MADURAI CITY. 4. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.11148 of 2011 Date :29/08/2011 RJ/12.9.11 2p/5c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/