BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Twenty Ninth day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.15052 of 2011 MOHAN ... PETITIONER / SINGLE ACCUSED Vs STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, NAGERCOIL, KANYAKUMARI DT CR NO. 60/2011 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. N.MOHIDEEN BASHA Advocate For Respondent : M/S.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner/Sole Accused apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 477 and 506(i) of IPC, in Crime Number 60 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3.According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has purchased the disputed property from one Thangaraj. But at the same time, the said property was already sold by one Prasanna Kumari w/o Thangaraj to the de facto complainant and the petitioner has verified the same and on finding that the encumbrance obtained by him did not disclose the encumbrance of sale made in favour of the de facto complainant from the said Prasanna Kumari, he had purchased the same and there was no intention to commit any offence and the same was also disclosed with the de facto complainant and both the petitioner and the de facto complainant compromised their disputes. He would further submit in his argument that they have entered into a memorandum of understanding before the Advocate Notary and both have signed in the said compromise. He has also produced a copy of the said compromise had in between the petitioner and the de facto complainant. He would request the court, since the petitioner had compromised the disputes and the sale deed executed on 22.02.2011 was cancelled through a revocation deed dated 09.08.2011, there is no necessity of proceeding with the case. Therefore he requested the court that anticipatory bail may be granted in favour of the petitioner. 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that if the parties have reached any compromise and the sale https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ deed executed by the petitioner/accused has been cancelled, it is for the court to pass suitable orders in the circumstances of the case, by imposing suitable conditions against the petitioner. 5.Considering the submissions made by both sides, I could see that the petitioner as well as the de facto complainant have compromised their dispute and the petitioner had cancelled the sale deed dated 22.02.2011 said to have been purchased by him from one Thangaraj through a cancellation deed dated 09.08.2011. However the investigation is pending and the truth of compromise entered into between the petitioner and de facto complainant has to be verified by the respondent police and charge sheet has to be filed in the circumstances of the case. 6.Under the said circumstances, I could find prima facie case for the grant of anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner with the following conditions: i)Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.II, Kuzhithurai and 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 concerned and on further condition, ii)that the petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required. iii)The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. iv)The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed. sd/- 29/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II,KUZHITHURAI 2 -DO-THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE KANYAKUMARI AT NAGERCOIL 3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, NAGERCOIL, KANYAKUMARI DT +1. CC to M/S. N.MOHIDEEN BASHA Advocate SR.No.41883 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.15052 of 2011 Date :29/11/2011 SMA/02.12.2011/6C/2P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/