1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT (Criminal Jurisdiction) Thursday, the Sixth day of January Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.129 of 2011 1 PAPPAMMAL 2 R.SIVAPRAKASH :PETITIONERS / ACCUSED (RANKS NOW KNOWN) -Vs- THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THENI ALLINAGARAM POLICE STATION, THENI DISTRICT. CR.NO. NOT KNOWN OF 2011 :RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. P.SENGUTTUARASAN, Advocate For Respondent : MR. P.RAJENDRAN, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) 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 under Sections 420 I.P.C. and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the first petitioner is the sister of the de- facto complainant and both have inherited the property from their father and they have orally partitioned themselves and the first petitioner has entered into the sale agreement with the second petitioner, on the strength of the oral partition between the first petitioner and the de-facto complainant and aggrieved by the said action of the first petitioner, the de-facto complainant has falsely given the complaint. He would further submit in his argument that it is purely a civil dispute and the first petitioner is a woman and the second petitioner is the intending purchaser and there is no question of cheating, as alleged by the de-facto complainant and the petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail. 3. The learned Government Advocate would submit in his argument that a complaint given by the de-facto complainant is still in the stage of petition enquiry and if for any reason, this is court inclined to grant anticipatory bail, suitable conditions may be imposed on the petitioners. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court could see that the complaint given by the de-facto complainant is still in petition enquiry stage and the allegations made therein appears to be a civil dispute and if any criminality is there, that has been found out and to be heard before the registration of the complaint and till then it could be considered as civil dispute and this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. 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, Theni and on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each 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 respondent police as and when required. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 5. 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/- 06/01/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO: 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Theni. 2.-Do- Thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theni. 3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 4.The Inspector of Police, Theni Allinagaram Police Station, Theni District. +1. CC to M/S. P.SENGUTTUARASAN Advocate SR.No.626. RP/10.01.2011/2P/6C. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.129 of 2011 Date :06/01/2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/