1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT (Criminal Jurisdiction) Friday, the Twenty Fifth day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.15150 of 2011 CHELLA BASKAR :PETITIONER / ACCUSED -Vs- THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, LAND GRAB CELL, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT, CRIME NO.76 OF 2011 :RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT S.KANAGARAJ :INTERVENOR (MP(MD)NO.1/11) For Petitioner : M/S. C.MAYIL VAHANA RAJENDRAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. For Intervenor : MR.F.X.EUGENE, Advocate. PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 Cr.P.C. ORDER:The Court Made the following order:- The petitioner/A1 apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 169 I.P.C in Crime No.76 of 2011, for the offence under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 169 I.P.C., on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2.Heard Mr.C.Mayil Vahana Rajendran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.F.X.Eugene, learned counsel for the Intervenor and Mr.K.S.Duraipandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State. 3.According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner is ranked as A1 and the accusation against him is that he has wantonly purchased the property from A2 and A3, who have no title to the property, by virtue of the earlier sale by the defacto complainant's wife as power of attorney of one Daniel and Dhanraj in favour of the defacto complainant. He would further submit that the said encumbrance over the said property or the said sale deed was not revealed in the encumbrance certificate obtained from him and therefore, he has purchased the property without the knowledge of the said transaction. He would further submit that he is a government doctor working at ESI hospital, Sivakasi and therefore, there is no question of any fleeing from the clutches of law and he is ready to abide any condition likely to be imposed against him. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the Intervenor would submit in his argument that the petitioner is a habitual purchaser of the properties with defects and balckmailing the parties to get it transferred in his name and the disputed property was purchased by the defacto complainant from his wife, the power of attorney of one Daniel, Dhanaraj and he also put up constructions in the said property. Knowingly well that there is a construction in the property, A1/the petitioner, has thus purchased the property with a view to blackmail the defacto complainant and to get the property transferred in his name. He would furtehr submit that the petitioner, even though working as a doctor, is not entitled to any anticipatory bail, for his activities in blackmailing the people similar to that of the defacto complainant. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5.The learned AAP would submit that investigation is pending and on conclusion of the investigation, the charge sheet would be filed and if for any reason, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail, stringent condition may be imposed against the petitioner. 6.Considering the submissions made by all the parties, I could see that in an earlier action. when the petitioner has applied for anticipatory bail from this Court, it was observed that there would not be any harassment from the hands of police and the petition was dismissed, since there was no complaint from the power of attorney. Now the petitioner has applied for anticipatory bail, after the case has been registered against him and others. No doubt the validity of transaction had by the petitioner in respect of the disputed property has to be testified during the investigation and the criminality attached to the said transaction has to be concluded only at the end of investigation and in the filing of charge sheet, filed by respondent police. 7.In the meantime, I could see that the nature of dispute prima facie civil nature, the criminality against the petitioner however, it has to be decided only at the time of conclusion of investigation. The petitioner, being a doctor has got a permanent root in the society and he is a government doctor. In the said circumstances, I could see that his presence may be secured by imposing suitable conditions and therefore, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail with stringent conditions. 8.Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail, in the event of his arrest or on his appearance before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli, on 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 NO.1, Tirunelveli, and on further condition that the petitioner should appear before the respondent police as and when required and also he shall not move away from the headquarters without the permission of the Court and he must co-operate with the investigation. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under section 438 Cr.P.C., scrupulously. 9.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, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed. sd/- 25/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO: 1.The Judicial Magistrate No:I, Tirunelveli. 2.-Do- Thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli. 3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 4.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Land Grab Cell,Tirunelveli +1CC to M/S. C.MAYIL VAHANA RAJENDRAN Advocate SR.No.41542. +1CC to M/S.F.X.EUGENE, Advocate SR.No.41739. RP/29.11.2011/2P/7C. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.15150 of 2011 Date :25/11/2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/