BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Thirteenth day of October Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD) No.12991 of 2011 D. HANSRAJ SAXENA ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.14 Vs STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, DINDIGUL DISTRICT, CRIME NO.57/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. N.SENTHILKUMAR Advocate For Respondent :Mr.K.S.DURAI PANDI, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- Apprehending arrest, at the hands of the respondent police, the petitioner, in Crime No.57 of 2011 on the file of the respondent Police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 441, 342, 465, 468, 471, 506(ii) and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, has come up with this Petition seeking for anticipatory bail. 2.According to the case of the prosecution, a partnership firm consisting of one Venkatachalam, Sivakumar and Rajendran owned a landed property. It is alleged that by force, a general power of attorney was obtained by the first accused from the said partners to deal with the said property. Based on the same, the first accused sold the property. Subsequently, the second accused has sold it to other accused. Sofar as the petitioner is concerned, it is submitted that at his behest, the first accused by force obtained the document . The first accused was arrested and also released on bail. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that absolutely as of now, there are no grounds even to make out a prima facie case against the petitioner. 4.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) would submit that one of the accused has given a confession statement and in which the role played by the petitioner is mentioned. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5.I have considered the submissions made on both sides. I am of the considered view that the alleged confession cannot be a foundation to deny anticipatory bail to the petitioner. As of now, the prosecution has not produced any other material to show that the petitioner has instigated the first accused to commit the crime. In view of the same, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, with the following conditions: 6.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on abil, in the event of arrest or on his appearnace before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul , 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerend and on further condition that the petitioner shal report before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Chennai every day at 10.30 a.m. until further ordes. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously. sd/- 13/10/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II, DINDIGUL 2.DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE DINDIGUL DISTRICT 3.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 4.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, DINDIGUL DISTRICT, 5.THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBCID, CHENNAI +Two CCs to M/S. N.SENTHILKUMAR Advocate SR.No.35627 rl/8c – 14.10.2011 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.12991 of 2011 Date :13/10/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/