1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Seventh day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.11742 of 2011 1 N.SURES RAJAN 2 G. M.SHA ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No.3,4 Vs THE STATE REP.BY STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VEDASERI POLICE STATION, NAGERCOIL,KANYAKUMARI DT. (CR.NO. 2090 OF 2011) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.G. PRABHU RAJADURAI Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.RAMAR, Addl.Public Prosecutor ( 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 109, 120(B), 167, 406, 415, 420, 468, 471 and 474 of I.P.C., in Crime No.2090 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are arrayed as A3 and A4 and they are nothing to do with the alleged commission of offence and a false case has been foisted against them under Sections 109, 120(B), 167, 406, 415, 420, 468, 471 and 474 of I.P.C. He further submitted that the alleged occurrence has been taken place on 20.08.2010. He further submitted that A1 is the owner of the property to the extent of 10.43 acres and the defacto complainant has agreed to purchase the property and fixed the price as Rs.17,500/- per cent and he paid a sum of Rs.60 Lakhs and also obtained a sale deed in respect of 3.09 acres. He further submitted that out of 10.43 acres, 6.05 acres is a private forest property and hence the first accused ought to have obtained no objection certificate from the Government. He further submitted that since the defacto complainant herein has not paid the balance amount, he sold the 87 cents in favour of A2. He further submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is that A3 and A4 has conspired and created the sale deed in favour of A2 and except this, no allegation has been made against these petitioners. He further submitted that the petitioners are nothing to do with the alleged commission of offence and hence, he prays for enlargement on anticipatory bail. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that case has been registered against seven persons and the petitioners are arrayed as A3 and A4. He further submitted that A1 has executed the power of attorney in favour of the defacto complainant's father, who in turn executed the sale deed in favour of his son/defacto complainant. He further submitted that again A1 has executed the sale deed in favour of A2, who is Personal Assistant to A1 and a Katapanchayat has been convened by the petitioners in the Government Guest House at Nagercoil, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 where they have threatened the defacto complainant and his father to hand over the property and created some forged documents in favour of A2. He further submitted that the investigations is an initial stage and hence, he prays for the dismissal of this application. 4. Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and also on perusal of an F.I.R., it is seen that A1 is the owner of the property and the defacto complainant has entered into a sale agreement with A1 and the price has been fixed as Rs.17,500/- per cent. It is also an admitted fact that in respect of 3.09 acres, sale deed has been executed in favour of the defacto complainant. Out of 10.43 acres, 6.05 acres is a private forest land and for executing the sale deed, no objection certificate from the Government is necessary. Even though A1 has demanded money, the defacto complainant refused to pay that amount. Admittedly A1 has executed the sale deed in favour of A2 in respect of 87 cents. As per the version of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, A2 has purchased the property, which was already in possession of the defacto complainant's father. The sale deed in favour of A2 has been came into existence on 20.08.2010 and the complaint has been given only on 01.09.2011 and there is a delay in preferring a complaint, but it is not the case of the defacto complainant that he paid the amount more than, what he purchased the property. 5. In such circumstances, since it is a civil dispute, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, with certain conditions. 6. 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 No.II, Nagercoil and 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 Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioners shall report before the Court concerned daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 7. The petitioners shall appear before the learned Magistrate concerned 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/- 07/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II,NAGERCOIL. 2 DO-THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT AT NAGERCOIL. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADASERI POLICE STATION, NAGERCOIL, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT. 4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1 CC to M/S.G. PRABHU RAJADURAI Advocate SR.No.30316 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.11742 of 2011 PA/08.09.2011/2P/6C Date :07/09/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/