BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Eighth day of August Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) Nos.9567, 9588 & 9827 of 2011 SUBBAIAH SAMY BALAMMAL ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 & 3 IN CRL OP.9567/11 RENUKA ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 IN CRL.OP.9588/11 RAMACHANDRAN ... PETITIONER/10TH ACCUSED IN CRL.OP.9827/11 Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, APPANAIKANPATTI POLICE STATION, SATTUR, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT. CR.NO.155 OF 2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT IN ALL THE PETITIONS For Petitioner : M/S. P.RAJKUMAR Advocate IN CRL.OP.9567 & 9827/11 For Petitioner : M/s.V.SASIKUMAR, Advocate IN CRL.OP.9588/11 For Respondent : MR.A.RAMAR, Additional Public Prosecutor ( Crl. Side) IN ALL THE PETITIONS. PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crl.O.P(MD) No.9567 of 2011 and the petitioner/Accused No.1 in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9588 of 2011 and the petitioner/10th accused in Crl.O.P(MD)No.9827 of 2011 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 474, 420 r/w Section 120(b)IPC, in Crime No.155 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence they seek anticipatory bail. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all petitions would submit that the petitioners are arrayed as A2,A3,A1 and A10 respectively. A1 is the daughter of de-facto complainant. He further submits that there was a oral partition taken place in the year 2004 and items 1 to 3 properties were alloted to her and she sold the same to A3 in the year 2010. A1 is a daughter of de-facto complainant. A2 is an attester who is son in-law of A3. In respect of items 11 and 12 of property, A9 obtained a power of attorney from son of the brother of the defacto complainant. In turn A9 sold the same to A10. He further submitted that the partition suit is pending before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Virdhunagar at Srivilliputhur. Now the dispute is only civil in nature and now, the petitioners apprehend arrest and hence, they prayed for their enlargement on anticipatory bail. 3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that A1 is a daughter of the de-facto complainant and she sold the three items of property to A3, stating that she is the owner of the property as if the property was allotted to her in the oral partition. A9 as a power agent of brother's son of the defacto complainant so items 11 and 12 are sold to in favour of A10. He further submitted that the investigation is going on and hence he prays for dismissal of this application. 4.The learned Counsel for the intervenor submits that there are 12 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ items. Since doing the business in Coimbatore, taking advantage of his absence in the locality, the first accused sold the property to A3 without receiving any consideration and A2 is the attestor of Sale Deed in favour of A3. He further submits that in respect of items 11 and 12, item Nos.11 and 12 have been sold to A2 and A3 by A10 and the investigation is going on. 5.Considering the rival submissions made by both sides, that the de- facto complainant and his brother of joint owner of item Nos.4 to 12. As per the version of intervenor, items Nos. 1 to 3 are self acquired property. There was a oral partition in the year 2004. In the oral partition, items Nos.1 to 3 were allotted to A1 in the year 2004. As per the version of the intervenor's counsel, no consideration has been passed. Whether there was oral partition is between the co-owners and whether the property was allotted to A1 and other co-owners have to be decided only in civil suit. Admittedly, the civil suit is pending and the dispute is civil in nature. Hence, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 6.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, Sattur and 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 Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sattur and on further condition that the petitioners shall report before the Court concerned 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, anticipatory bail petition stands dismissed. sd/- 08/08/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, SATTUR. 2. -DO- THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VIRUDHUNAGAR AT SRIVILLIPUTHUR. 3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, APPANAIKANPATTI POLICE STATION, SATTUR, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT. 4. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +.2CC TO M/S. P.RAJKUMAR ADVOCATE SR.NOS.26616, +1CC TO M/S.D.SHANMUGARAJA, ADVOCATE SR.26839, +1CC TO M/S.V.SASIKUMAR, ADVOCATE SR. 26595 SR : 10.08.2011 : 2p/9c ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) Nos.9567, 9588 & 9827 of 2011 Date :08/08/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/