BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Twenty Second day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.15141 of 2011 1. SIVAKUMAR, 2. MAHALAKSHMI ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2 Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, KARUR DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. S.RAVI Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAI PANDIAN, 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 punishable under Sections 420, 468, 120(B) and 506(i) I.P.C in Crime No.29 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police. They have approached this Court for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Heard Mr.S.Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.S.Durai Pandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit in his argument that the petitioners 1 and 2 have not committed any offence as alleged in the complaint. He would further submit that the defacto complainant has released his right in the year 2007. After receiving proper consideration and in pursuance of the said release, the licence for running the petrol bunk was transferred in the name of the petitioners and the said release was acted upon and thereafter, the petitioners have also filed a suit on the disturbance given by the defacto complainant in O.S.No.91 of 2009 before the learned District Munsif Court, Kulithalai and it is pending. But the complaint has been now only filed with some ulterior motive. He would further submit that there is a civil dispute and there is no criminality in the case, therefore, the petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that there is a civil dispute in between the brothers viz., the defacto complainant and the first accused and the first accused has cheated the defacto complainant by forging the release deed said to have been obtained from him and it has to be investigated further and custodial interrogation may be necessary for the purpose of this case. He would further submit that if for any reason, the petitioners are granted bail suitable directions are issued. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. Considering the rival submissions made by both sides, I could see that the first petitioner as well as the defacto complainant are brothers and the allegations levelled against the petitioners/accused would be that the release deed obtained by the first petitioner from the defacto complainant in the year 2007 was forged one and the signatures found in the said release deed is not belonging to the defacto complainant. Further, a suit is said to have been filed by the petitioners against the defacto complainant before the learned District Munsif, Kulithalai in O.S.No.91 of 2009 in respect of the said properties and it is pending. The present compliant has been lodged only recently and it is registered and investigation is being carried on. 6.In the said circumstances, I find prima facie case for the grant of anticipatory bail, however, the criminality has to be ascertained only during the investigation and it has to be stated in the charge sheet, if filed. Therefore, this court is constrained to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 7. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail, in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the Judicial Magistrate concerned on executing a separate 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.II, Kulithalai and on further condition that the petitioners shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 8. The petitioners shall appear before the Magistrate concerned within a period of 15 days, failing which, the anticipatory bail granted shall stand automatically cancelled. sd/- 22/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II, KULITHALAI, KARUR DISTRICT. 2. -DO- THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KARUR. 3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, KARUR DISTRICT. 4. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. S.RAVI Advocate SR.No.40963 SR : 24.11.2011 : 2P/6C ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.15141 of 2011 Date :22/11/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/