BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Eighteenth day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.14998 of 2011 C. RAMESH ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED Vs THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, THENI, THENI DISTRICT CRIME NO. 14/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. M.ANANTHA MURUGAN Advocate For Respondent : Mr.K.S.DURAI PANDIAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner/accused prays for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 419 and 420 of IPC, in Crime No.14 of 2011, on the file of the respondent police. 2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor(Criminal Side) apeparing for the State. 3.Considering the arguments advanced by both sides, this Court could understand that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.5 and the offence said to have been committed by him is under Sections 468, 471, 419 and 420 of IPC. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit in his arguments that the petitioner was the attestor of the power of attorney and he has no intention to commit any offence as stated in the complaint. He would further submit in his argument that this Court, on an earlier occasion, has come to the conclusion in Crl.O.P.No.6069 of 2011 on 20.5.2011 that there are discrepancies in the case regarding execution of power of attorney and therefore, this Court has granted anticipatory bail to the first accused. He would further submit in his argument that the petitioner is only an attestor and the gravity of the alleged offence on the first accused is more than the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner and he was granted anticipatory bail by this Court. 5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor(Criminal side) would submit in his arguments that the case of the complainant was to the effect that A1 has impersonated the defacto complainant and executed the power of attorney and the investigation is offing and the witnesses are yet to be examined and during the investigation there are possibilities to clear the discrepancies. If for any reason, this Court comes to the conclusion to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in par with the first accused and suitable conditions may be imposed for the secured presence of the petitioner. 6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the said submission of either sides, I could see that the first accused against whom the main accusation is made in the complaint was granted anticipatory bail in Crl.O.P.No.6069 of 2011 on 20.5.2011. It is the case of the complainant that the petitioner is an attestor to the said document. Therefore, I could see that the petitioner is also entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in parlance with the first accused. Accordingly, (a) The petitioner should execute a bond to the tune of Rs.5,000/- and two sureties each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Andipatti (b) The petitioner shall be released on bail, in the event of arrest (c ) the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by any police officer as and when required ( d) the petitioner shall not indirectly or directly make any inducement , threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to any police officer and (e) the petitioner shall not leave India without any prior permission from the Court. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously. The petitioner shall surrender before the Court concerned within a period of 15 days, failing which, the anticipatory bail granted shall stand automatically cancelled. sd/- 18/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ TO 1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ANDIPATTI 2.DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE THENI DISTRICT 3.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, THENI, +1. CC to M/S. M.ANANTHA MURUGAN Advocate SR.No.40532 rl/6c – 22.11.2011 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.14998 of 2011 Date :18/11/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/