1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Fifth day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.10268 of 2011 K.NALLAMANI ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED Vs STATE REP. THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE OOMATCHIKULAM POLICE STATION, MADURAI.(CRIME NO.582 of 2011) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. K.MURALEEDHARAN 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 petitioner/accused apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120b, 406, 420, 467, 408, 471 and 506(i) of IPC in Crime No.582 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was charged under Sections 120b, 406, 420, 467, 408, 471 and 506 (i) of IPC and the petitioner is arrayed as A3 and a case has been registered on the basis of the complaint given by the subsequent purchaser of the property. Originally, the property belongs to A1 and she borrowed Rs.6 lakhs from LIC for construction of house and suppressing this fact, she sold the property in favour of A2 and A2 sold the same to A3 who is the petitioner herein and A3 sold the property in favour of A4. A4 in turn sold the same in favour of the de-facto complainant. Now, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that at the time of his purchase, he has taken Encumbrance Certificate and in that only one mortgage has been mentioned. He further submitted that the loan obtained by A1 from LIC has not been disclosed in Encumbrance Certificate and the petitioner is not aware of the fact that A1 has borrowed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- from the LIC and he is the bonafide purchaser for value and in turn he sold the property https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 and he is nothing to do with the commission of offence. He further submitted that now the de-facto complainant has given a false complaint and he apprehends for arrest and hence, he prays for enlargement on anticipatory bail. 3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the property is owned by A1 and she borrowed Rs.6 lakhs from LIC for construction of building and she has not disclosed the same and he executed the settlement deed in favour of A2 and A2 in turn sold the same to A3 and A3 sold the same to A4 and from A4, the de-facto complainant has purchased the property. A3 wantonly suppressed the fact that the property was mortgaged to LIC while he executed the sale deed in favour of A4 and a case has been registered against four persons on 11.08.2011 and the investigation is in earlier stage and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application. 4.Considering the rival submissions made by both sides, admittedly, the property is originally owned by A1 and she borrowed Rs.6 lakhs from LIC for construction of the building, but she has not discharged the same, but she executed the sale deed in favour of A2 from whom the petitioner herein/A3 purchased the property. She produced the Encumbrance Certificate and in that it has not been mentioned that she obtained loan from LIC and the property was mortgaged only in favour of Sundaram Home finance Ltd., Madurai and that has been discharged by him and after his purchase he also sold the same in favour of A4 and A4 sold the same to the de-facto complainant. Considering the fact that the petitioner was not aware of LIC loan and LIC has taken steps under SARFASI proceedings, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. 5.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Madurai, and 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 Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioner shall report before the Court concerned daily at 10.30 a.m until further orders. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C scrupulously. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 6.The petitioner 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/- 05/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.2, MADURAI 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE MADURAI 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE OOMATCHIKULAM POLICE STATION, MADURAI. 4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. K.MURALEEDHARAN Advocate SR.No.29845 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.10268 of 2011 Date :05/09/2011 TR : 07.09.2011: 3p/6c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/