BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Fourteenth day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD)Nos.14544 and 14545 of 2011 1 DANIEL 2 SASI KUMAR 3 MARIMUTHU .. PETITIONERS / ACCUSED 2 to 4 IN BOTH THE PETITIONS Vs STATE REP BY:: THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, TUTICORIN, TUTICORIN DISTRICT. (CRIME NOS.50 AND 51 OF 2011) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT IN BOTH PETITIONS For Petitioner : M/S. S.RAGAVENTHRE Advocate in both Petitions For Respondent : MR.S. DURAIPANDIAN,ADDITIONAL PUBLIC POROSECUTOR in both Petitions. PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, in both the petitions, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 120(b), 419, 468, 471 and 420 I.P.C in Crime Nos.50 and 51 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police. They have approached this Court for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Heard Ms.S.Ragaventhre, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.S.Durai Pandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit in his argument that the petitioners, in both the petitions, are only brokers and they have no intention to commit any offence of impersonation and therefore, they have not at all committed any offences. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that the second petitioner is not connected with the case and the petitioners 1 and 3, who are ranked as A2 and A4 joined with the first accused, who is absconding, created the document and they have signed as attestors of the said documents. He would further submit that the other accused / A1 absconded and if there is any grant of anticipatory bail, there is a likelihood of hampering of investigation. 5. Considering the submissions made by both sides, I could see that the offence said to have been committed by the first accused is a serious one and the petitioners are said to have been attested the documents. However, the investigation is offing. If, in the meanwhile, any anticipatory bail is granted, it would affect the further investigation. Therefore, the custodial interrogation may necessary for these petitioners and therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed. sd/- 14/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, TUTICORIN, TUTICORIN DISTRICT. 2 THE ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT MADURAI DM::2011:NOVEMBER:17:: ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) Nos.14544 and 14545 of 2011 Date :14/11/2011 2p:3c:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/