BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Fifth day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.11535 of 2011 1 MAARI @ MARIMUTHU 2 THIRUSELVAM ..PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2 & 3 Vs. STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, MADURAI, MADURAI DISTRICT. IN CRIME NO.53/2011 ..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioners : M/S. K.JEGANATHAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.RAMAR, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners are arrayed as A2 and A3 and they were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 15.07.2011 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 427, 448, 471 and 506(i) I.P.C, in Crime No.53 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek bail. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that he is withdrawing this petition for bail in respect of the first petitioner and he has also made an endorsement to that effect. He further submitted that the second petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case and he is in custody for more than 45 days. He further submitted that the second petitioner is only a tenant under A2 and he is running a C.D.Shop in the name of Daya Musicals and he has no way connected in the alleged commission of offence. He further submitted that the second petitioner's wife is an advance stage of pregnancy and hence, he prays for enlargement on bail. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that a case has been registered on 15.07.2011 against five persons. He further submitted that the second petitioner is running a C.D. Shop in the name of Daya Musicals and he is a tenant under A2 and accused 2 and 3 are close relatives. A3 assisted A2 for creating false documents viz., lease deed and rental agreement as if it was executed by the deceased Easwarlal. He further submitted that the investigation is an initial stage and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and admittedly, the property is belonging to one Kalpana, wife of Eswarlal and she mortgaged the property in favour of A1, Nageswaran and Vikram and the mortgage has been discharged. However, A1 has not handed over the possession and trespassed into the defacto complainant's property and dismantled the house and in that place A2 has constructed a common toilet and A3 is running a C.D. Shop in the name of Daya Musicals and he was only a tenant under A2 and the second petitioner's wife is an advance stage of pregnancy, I am inclined to grant bail to the second petitioner with certain conditions. 5. In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner this petition is dismissed as withdrawn in respect of the first petitioner. 6. Insofar as the second petitioner is concerned, he is ordered to be released on bail 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 learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai, and on further condition that the petitioners shall report before the Court concerned daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. sd/- 05/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, MADURAI. 2 -Do-Thro' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE MADURAI. 3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, MADURAI, MADURAI DISTRICT. 5 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, TRICHY. +1. CC to M/S. K.JEGANATHAN Advocate SR.No.29814 akm/05.09.11 /2p-7c/ ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.11535 of 2011 Date :05/09/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/