BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Eighteenth day of October Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD) No.11839 of 2011 1. M.S.P.SHANMUGAM PILLAI 2. S.GLARANCE, ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2 Vs STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE (CRIME) DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, THOOTHUKUDI, (CRIME NO. 39/2011) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. G.R. SWAMINATHAN 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 :- The petitioners are accused in Crime No.39 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police for offences under Sections 120(B), 468, 471 and 420 IPC. Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police, the petitioners have come up with this petition seeking anticipatory bail. 2. Earlier the petitioners have filed Crl.OP.(MD)No.10019 of 2011 seeking anticipatory bail before this Court and the same was dismissed by the Hon'ble Justice R.MALA, by giving cogent reasons. A perusal of the said order would show, it is a lengthy order, covering all the grounds raised in the petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not raised any new point except saying that the first petitioner is an old man. 3. Having regard to the fact that the land in question was sold in Court auction and the Court auction purchaser has sold away the same to the de-facto complainant and having regard to the fact that the petitioner, who lost in the Court auction in the year 1999, has executed a general power of attorney in favour of the second accused, the learned Judge has also dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail for both the petitioners. It is now submitted that the first petitioner is an old man aged 81 years. I am also of the view that this old man would not have known that what he has signed is a sale deed. However, it is crystal clear that the second accused is the one, who has obtained such a power of attorney with a view to create some cloud in the property of the de- facto complainant. Therefore the second petitioner does not deserve any https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ sympathy at the hands of this Court, except to surrender before the Court and he has got no other option. Thus, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the second petitioner. As far as the first petitioner is concerned, only on the ground that he is a old man, aged 81 years, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail, but with stringent conditions. 5. Accordingly, the first petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thoothukudi, 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 concerned and on further condition that the first petitioner shall report before the respondent police every day at 10.30 a.m. for a period of two weeks. The first petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 6. This petition is respect of the second petitioner/A2 is dismissed. sd/- 18/10/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, THOOTHUKUDI. 2. -DO- THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THOOTHUKUDI. 3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE (CRIME), DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, THOOTHUKUDI, 4. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. G.R. SWAMINATHAN Advocate SR.No.35965 SR : 21.10.2011 : 2P/6C ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.11839 of 2011 Date :18/10/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/