BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Twenty Ninth day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.13059 of 2011 V.KARUPPASAMY PANDIAN ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 Vs STATE REP.BY, THE INSEPECTOR OF POLICE, CITY CRIME BRANCH, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT CRIME NO.36 OF 2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ASHOK PANDIAN .. INTERVENER/DEFACTO - COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. R.ANAND Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.RAMAR, Government Advocate(Crl.Side) For Intervenor : M/S.M.MUTHUGEETHAYAN, Advocate for M/S.D.SRINIVASARAGAVAN PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner is arrayed as A1 and he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 13.09.2011 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 120(b), 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 384 and 506(i) I.P.C., in Crime No.36 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks bail. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that if at all the offence under Section 506(ii) alone has been made out against the petitioner. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he called the defacto complainant viz., Ashok Pandian, Durai Pandian and Kannan and threatened him to withdraw the second appeal, which is pending before this Court, after receipt of Rs.1 crore. Except this allegation, no allegation has been made out against the petitioner. He further submitted that A2 and A3 have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail. He further submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 13.09.2011 and the investigation is considerably over and hence, he prays for enlargement on bail. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. Refuting the same, the learned counsel for the intervenor would submit that the petitioner was arrayed as A1 and during that period, he was a ruling M.L.A. and he was having a political influence and muscle and money power. The petitioner has called the defacto complainant viz., Ashok Pandian, Durai Pandian and Kannan and directed them to withdraw the second appeal, which is pending before this Court, after receipt a sum of Rs.1 Crore. He further submitted that if he is enlarged on bail he will tamper the witnesses and hence, he prays for the dismissal of this application. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner is the main accused in this case. He further submitted that the defacto complainant was called by A1 and hence, the defacto complainant, Ashok Pandian, and his brother, Durai Pandian and his friend Kannan gone to the place of A1. At that time, the petitioner has threatened the defacto complainant to withdraw the second appeal, which pending before this Court and offered a sum of Rs.1 Crore. He further submitted that A3 and A4 are the relatives of A1, who are the purchaser of the property and they are sold the same to the third parties to the tune of Rs.9 crores. He further submitted that the delay in preferring the complaint has been clearly mentioned in the F.I.R. and hence, he prays for the dismissal of this application. 5. Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and on perusal of the documents, it is seen that originally, the property is owned by A2's mother and she was executed the power of attorney in favour of A2 on 30.07.1986 in pursuance of the power of attorney, the second accused executed the sale deed in favour of one Matheesa Pandiyan on 03.11.1986 and another portion to Durai Pandian on 06.11.1986, who is none other than the brother of the defacto complainant and because of want of Income Tax Clearance Certificate, the documents were not registered and they are kept pending before the Registeration Department. Hence, the Matheesa Pandian and Durai Pandian have filed the suits in O.S.No.230 and 232 of 1995 against A2 and his mother and brothers and sister for mandatory injunction directing them to produce the Income Tax Clearance Certificate and also for permanent injunction not to alienate or encumber the property till the disposal of the Suit. A2 also filed another suit in O.S.No.64 of 1998 for declaration that the sale deed in favour of Matheesa Pandiyan and Durai Pandiyan are null and void and all the suits are entered infavour of Matheesa Pandian and Durai Pandian, against which A2 has preferred appeals and the appeals were allowed. Against the appeals Durai Pandiyan and Matheesa Pandiyan have preferred the second appeal and during the pendency of the second appeal, Matheesa Pandian filed a memo for withdrawing the second appeal and at this juncture, the defacto complainant has filed the application to implead himself as a party to the second appeal. That application was allowed on 07.03.2001, then only, the overt act against the first accused came into play. The case of the prosecution is in the year 2007, the petitioner has called the defacto complainant and his brother and at that time, A1 has threatened the defacto complainant and his brother to withdraw the second appeal after receipt of Rs.1 Crore but the value of the property is more than 9 crores. But admittedly, no complaint has been given immediately and the complaint has been given on 30.09.2011 and the reason for delay in preferring the complaint since, the first accused/petitioner herein is a rulling M.L.A. in the year 2007 and he was having a political influence and muscle and money power. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Admittedly the complaint has been given on 13.09.2011, on the day itself the petitioner was arrested. On perusal of the F.I.R., it is seen that the only overt act against the petitioner is that he called the defacto complainant and his brother Durai Pandiyan and threatened them to withdraw the second appeal after the receipt of Rs.1 crore. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also considering the gravity of the offence and the petitioner is in custody from 13.09.2011 and it is a civil dispute and A2 and A3 have already been granted anticipatory bail, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. 7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his 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, Tirunelveli, and on further condition that the petitioner shall report before the Court concerned daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. Sd/- 29/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I TIRUNELVELI 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTATE TIRUNELVELI 3 THE INSEPECTOR OF POLICE CITY CRIME BRANCH, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT 4 THE ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 5 THE SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON, PALAYAMKOTTAI +1. CC to M/S. R.ANAND Advocate SR.No.33917 +1. CC to M/S.D.SRINIVASARAGHAVAN Advocate SR.No.33975 ssk/29.09.2011 /8c -3p/- ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13059 of 2011 Date :29/09/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/