BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twenty First day of December Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.15720 of 2011 1 C.KANNADASSAN 2 G.D.SHARMA ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED Vs STATE THRO' THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, DINDIGUL. (CR.NO.73/2011) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. B.CHANDRAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN, Addl. Public Prosecutor (Crl. Side) For Intervener : MR.N.ANANTHAPADMANABHAN, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 406, 409 and 478 of IPC, in Crime No.73 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police, the petitioners have approached this Court for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Heard Mr.B.Chandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr.K.S.Duraipandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and Mr.N.Anantha Padmanabhan, learned counsel appearing for the intervenor. 3. According to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are ranked as A3 and A4. He would further submit in his argument that the dispute in between the accused persons and the defacto complainant have been settled and therefore, the petitioners, who are the subsequent purchasers. Hence no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution in the event of the petitioners released on anticipatory bail. 4. The learned counsel for the intervenor would submit in his argument that the matter has been settled in between the parties and he has no serious objection for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that the matter has been settled in between the parties and the investigation is still pending and if for any reason, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, suitable condition may be imposed for their secured presence. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the dispute in between the petitioners and the other accused and the defacto complainant have been settled, in view of the settlement reached in between the parties, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul and on each of them 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 Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioners shall appear before the respondent police as and when required. 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 stands dismissed. sd/- 21/12/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, DINDIGUL. 2. THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE DINDIGUL. 3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, DINDIGUL. 4. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. T.AMJATHKHAN Advocate SR.No.44983 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.15720 of 2011 Date :21/12/2011 RJ/23.12.11 2p/6c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/