BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Eighth day of December Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S. TAMILVANAN CRL OP(MD) No.15482 of 2011 1 THIRUMALAISAMY 2 DEVADOSS KANNAPPAN ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 3 Vs STATE REP.BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SENKOTTAI POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT CR NO.198/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. M.VEILKANI RAJU Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN, Addl.Public Prosecutor(Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 2.The petitioners, who are arrayed as A1 & A3 facing charges for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 426, 468, 471, 294(b) and 506(i) I.P.C. in Crime No.198 of 2011, on the file of the respondent police, have come forward with this application, seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners arrayed as A1 & A3 are innocent persons and according to him, the first petitioner/A1 had executed a power of attorney deed for selling his property to the co-accused/A2 and A2 executed sale deed on behalf of A1 in favour of the de-facto complainant and received consideration of Rs.17,20,000/- and as per the complaint given by the de-facto complainant, the possession of the property has not been handed over to him, similarly parental document was also not handed over but only a forgery document was handed over by A1 & A3 and they demanded further sum of Rs.4,12,000/-. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners there was no forgery committed by the petitioners herein. He submits that there is a civil dispute pending between the petitioners and the de-facto complainant however, the de-facto complainant has given a criminal complaint, hence, he prays for anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioners. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent has not disputed the fact that there is no bad antecedents against the petitioners and that there is a civil dispute pending between the parties. 5.There is no supporting materials to show that the petitioners had produced any forgery document or the land was sold by A2 on behalf of A1 belongs to any third party. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that there is no bad antecedents against the petitioners, I find it just and reasonable to grant anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sengottai and on executing a personal 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 Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioners shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m until further orders. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously. 7. The petitioners 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 shall stand dismissed. Sd/- 08/12/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SENGOTTAI 2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SENKOTTAI POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DT 3 THE ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI +1. CC to M/S. M.VEILKANI RAJU Advocate SR.No.42975 ssk/20.12.2011 /5c -2p/- ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.15482 of 2011 Date :08/12/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/