BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twelfth day of October Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD) No.13041 of 2011 T.S.NAGARAJ ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.4 Vs SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, MADURAI CR.NO. 62 OF 2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. PORKODI KARNAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- Apprehending arrest, the petitioner, in Crime No.62 of 2011 on the file of the respondent Police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 419, 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, has come forward with this petition seeking for anticipatory bail. 2. According to the case of the prosecution, an extent of 3 ½ acres of land is owned by the defacto complainant by name Ramasamy. The third accused in this case is yet another Ramasamy, who has no connection with the property. But the third accused Ramasamy executed a general power of attorney in favour of the present petitioner impersonating the real owner Mr.Ramasamy. Based on the said power of attorney, the petitioner has sold away the property to third parties. Now the legal heirs of the original owner Ramasamy have filed a suit in which the purchasers from the petitioner are the contesting defendants. With these allegations, the present case has been registered. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that at the time when he got power from Ramasamy Viz., the third accused, he was not aware of the fact that the third accused was not the real owner. He has believed the patta stood in the name of Ramasamy for entering into such a power of attorney and then to sell the properties to the third parties. 4. In my considered opinion, even after coming to know that the third accused, who had given power to the petitioner upon which the petitioner has sold away the properties to the third parties, the petitioner has not come forward to settle the dispute with the defacto complainant. Because of the act of the petitioner, the real owners are now before the Civil Court, where purchasers from the petitioner are also contesting. Thus, the beneficiaries out of the transaction are also under legal fight and therefore, the act of petitioner cannot be stated to be an ordinary act. For all the reasons, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, this petition is dismissed. sd/- 12/10/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ TO 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, MADURAI 2. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BEHCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI GH : 18.10.2011 : 2p/3c ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13041 of 2011 Date :12/10/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/