1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Fifth day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.11621 of 2011 MRS.S.JANAKI ... PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED Vs STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOVILPATTI WEST POLICE STATION TUTICORIN DISTRICT CR.NO.968/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. B.RAJESH SARAVANAN Advocate For Respondent : MR. A.RAMAR, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner/first accused apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC, in Crime No.968 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the alleged occurrence took place on 22.02.2010 and a false case has been foisted against her and the case has been registered under Sections 420, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC, in Crime NO.968 of 2011. He further submitted that the case of the prosecution is that A1 and A2 entered into a sale agreement with the de-facto complainant and accepted Rs.2,00,000/-. Further it is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner herein had executed the sale deed and it is only a civil dispute. He further submitted that she never executed a sale agreement in favour of the de-facto complainant complainant and there is no talking terms between A1 and A2 for the past 12 years and the petitioner herein gave a complaint against A2 and the same is pending. The de-facto complainant complainant preferred a complaint pressurising the complainant to withdraw the complaint. A2 was already granted anticipatory bail and the petitioner now apprehends arrest and hence, she prays for enlargement on anticipatory bail. 3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.side) refuting the contentions of the petitioner and submits that the de-facto complainant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 entered into a sale agreement and paid Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner and she neither repaid the amount nor executed the sale deed and the investigation is going on and hence he prays for dismissal of the petition. 4.Considering the rival submissions made on both sides and since the de-facto complainant herein states that he entered into a sale agreement, but the accused neither repaid the amount nor executed the sale deed and the dispute is civil in nature and even though the petitioner was not arrested she neither interfered with the investigation nor absconded from the jurisdiction, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. 5.Accordinngly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of her arrest or on her appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Kovilpatti and on her 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 petitioner shall report before the Court concerned daily at 10.30 a.m. Until further orders. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C scrupulously. 6.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, anticipatory bail petition stands dismissed. sd/- 05/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II, KOVILPATTI 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TUTICORIN 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOVILPATTI WEST POLICE STATION TUTICORIN DISTRICT 4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. B.RAJESH SARAVANAN Advocate SR.No.29832 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.11621 of 2011 Date :05/09/2011 TR : 06.09.2011: 2p/6c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/