BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Fifteenth day of December Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.14932 of 2011 1 MURUGESAN 2 THANGAPANDI 3 SUBRAMANIYA NADAR ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3 Vs THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PALAVOOR POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT FOR PETITIONER : M/S.S.PALANIVELAYUTHAM ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR INTERVENOR : MR.R.MAHESWARAN ADVOCATE PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL UNDER SEC.438 CR.P.C. ORDER : THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER :- The petitioners/A1 to A3 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences under Sections 468, 120(B) and 420 I.P.C., in Crime No.188 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2. Heard Mr.S.Palaniveayutham, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Maheswaran, learned counsel appearing for the Intervenor and Mr.K.S.Duraipandian, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent State. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the defacto complainant has given the complaint and it was referred under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and a case has been registered and the investigation is being carried on. He would further submit that the petitioners are not guilty of the offences said to have been made by them in the complaint and it is purely a civil dispute in between the parties. He would further submit that he has got title to the property of 40 cents in a Final Decree and the said judgment has become final. He would also submit that the defacto complainant is not entitled to the property said to have been sold by the petitioners 2 to 3 in favour of the 1st petitioner and there is no commitment of any offence by the petitioners. He would also submit that the petitioners 2 and 3 are sufficiently aged people and they are law abiding citizen and they are ready to abide any condition likely to be imposed on them and hence, the petitioners may be released on anticipatory bail. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the Intervenor would submit that the petitioners, if at all would be entitled to 40 cents as in the civil proceedings had in between them and they have executed the sale deed in favour of the 1st petitioner regarding 53 cents to which they are not entitled. He would further submit that the petitioners 2 and 3 have https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ deliberately executed the sale deed, which is belonging to other people in common including the defacto complainant and therefore, the petitioners need not be granted anticipatory bail. 5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the case has been investigated and the investigation is contuning and the decree passed by the civil Court has to be perused during the investigation. He would further submit in his argument that the civil rights as contemplated in the said decrees have to be considered and the criminality of the petitioners have also to be ascertained during the investigation. He would further submit that if for any reasons, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail, suitable conditions may be imposed against them. 6. Considering the submissions made by both sides, I could see that the extent of properties said to have been sold by the petitioners 2 and 3 in favour of the 1st petitioner has to be ascertained and the right over the said property has also to be seen and if the petitioners are found to have executed the sale deed in respect of the property to which they are not entitled to whether there is any criminality was in the transaction had by the petitioners have also to be ascertained and that can be done by the police during the investigation only. The petitioners 2 and 3 are sufficiently aged persons and are senior citizens and they have also got permanent residence and therefore, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, with stringent conditions, considering the apprehension of the defacto complainant. 7.Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail, in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, 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 Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, and on further condition that the petitioners shall stay at Tirunelveli Town and appear before the Tirunelveli Town Police Station at 10.30 a.m., until further orders for the purpose of interrogation. 8. The petitioners shall appear before the Magistrate concerned within a period of 15 days, failing which, the anticipatory bail granted shall stand automatically cancelled. sd/- 15/12/2011 / TRUE COPY / TO SUB-ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VALLIYOOR. 2 DO-THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TIRUNELVELI. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALAVOOR POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI. 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1 CC TO M/S.S.PALANIVELAYUTHAM ADVOCATE SR.NO.43879. +1 CC TO M/S.R.MAHESWARAN, ADVOCATE SR.NO.43953. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.14932 of 2011 Date :15/12/2011 2P/7C RPB : 19.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/