BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Thirteenth day of October Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD) No.11849 & 11859 of 2011 1. R.DAVID, 2. P.JEGAN ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED IN BOTH CASES NAGARAJ ...INTERVENER IN CRL.O.P.No.11849/2011 MOHAMMED FATHIMA MOHAMMED MEERA SAHIB MOHAIDEEN ABDUL KADHER KAJA MOHAIDEEN ...INTERVENERS IN CRL.O.P.No.11859 Vs STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DISTIRCIT CRIME BRANCH TUTICORIN ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT IN BOTH CASES For Petitioner : MR.B.KUMAR SENIOR COUNSEL FOR M/S. G.ANBU SARAVANAN Advocate IN BOTH CASES For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR For Intervener : MR.G.R.SWAMINATHAN, ADVOCATE IN CRL.O.P.No.11849 FOR Intervener : MR.G.ABNUSARAVANAN, ADVOCATE IN CRL.O.P.No.11859 PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners herein are one and the same, Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for offence under Section 420 IPC on the complaint of one Nagaraja, Fathima Beevi and others, they have come up with the present petitions seeking for anticipatory bail. 2. According to the petitioners, they purchased the property comprised in Survey No.17/1A1 from one Jeyalakshmi and others by means of a Registered Sale Deed for a valuable consideration on 02.05.2011. Later on, they came to know that there was a partition suit filed by one of the defacto complainants in respect of some properties claiming a share and another de facto complainant, by name Fathima Beevi claiming that she is the absolute owner, over which neither the vendors of the petitioner nor other de facto complainant has got any right, However, these two complaints have been now preferred claiming that the petitioners have cheated the de facto complainants. But, so far no case has been registered. Under these circumstances, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police, the petitioners are now before this Court seeking Anticipatory bail. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on an earlier occasion, submitted that two complaints have been received and the matters have been enquired into by the police and so far, no case has been registered. The de facto complainants in both the complaints have appeared before this Court as interveners. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. When these Criminal Original Petitions came up for hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that because of the latest developments, the petitioners are willing to reconvey the property purchased by them to their vendor. In order to prove their bona fides, the matter was adjourned. Today when the petitions came up for hearing the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners produced the original cancellation deed dated 15.09.2011 executed by these petitioners in favour of their vendors. Since the petitioners have proved their bona fides, I am of the considered view that they are entitled for Anticipatory Bail. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the invervener would submit that the documents are not really cancellation deed in legal sense. The said arguments is adopted by the learned counsel for other de-facto complainant. 6. In any considered view, when the apprehension of arrest is genuine in connection with a case relating to non-bailable offence, this Court could be justified in granting Anticipatory Bail to the petitioners. 7. In such view of the matter, I find prima facie case in favour of the petitioners. 8. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail, in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tuticorin executing a separate bond for a like sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or 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. sd/- 13/10/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO,I, TUTICORIN 2. THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TUTICORIN 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DISTIRCIT CRIME BRANCH, TUTICORIN 4. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI +1. CC to M/S. G.ANBU SARAVANAN Advocate SR.No.35529 GH : 14.10.2011 : 2p/6c ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.11849 & 11859 of 2011 Date :13/10/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/