BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Ninth day of August Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.10169 of 2011 1. M.KANNAN 2. M.GANESAN : PETITIONERS/ACCUSED Vs. THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE MANDAPAM CAMP POLICE STATION MANDAPAM, RAMANATHAPURAM. CR.NO.142/2011 : RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. R.R.THAMOTHAR RAJ 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 petitioners/accused apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 448, 420 & 506(ii) of I.P.C and in Crime No.142 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that a false case has been registered against the petitioner under Sections 294(b), 341, 448, 420 & 506(ii) of I.P.C. He further submitted that the first petitioner is running a bakery and tea stall in the name and style of 'G.K.Bakery' in the property belonging to Government porambokku and 'B' Memo has been issued for recognizing his possession and he also paid the penal tax to the Government and he also obtained the license for running the bakery and the defacto complainant and others approached him for vacating the premises and hence, the petitioner gave a complaint to the higher officials. But the present case has been registered against them as if the petitioners are only the tenants under the real owner. Now they apprehend for arrest and hence, they pray for enlargement on anticipatory bail. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.Side) would submit that the petitioners are arrayed as A1 and A2 and the alleged occurrence has been taken place on 31.7.2011 at 18 hours and complaint has been given on 1.8.2011 at 18.15 hours and a case has been registered under Sections 294(b), 341, 448, 420 and 506(ii) of IPC and the petitioners are tenants under one Mujeebur Rahman and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the petitioners paid Rs.100/- per day as rent and investigation is going on and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application. 4. Considering the rival submissions made by both sides as well as on a perusal of FIR and documents filed, admittedly,the suit property is the Government porambokku and the petitioners are running a bakery and tea stall and recognizing their possession, 'B' Memo has been issued and on the basis of 'B' Memo, the first petitioner paid the penal tax and the document has shown that on 14.6.2007, he paid the land revenue and also paid the professional tax and since the defacto complainant himself attempted to vacate the premises, he gave the complaint and then only, a case has been registered and a perusal of FIR shows that occurrence has been taken place on 31.7.2011 at 18 hours and complaint has been given on 1.8.2011 at 16.30 hours i.e. after 24 hours which shows that there is delay in preferring the complaint, to grab the property the present complaint has been given. 5. Considering the same, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners on condition that the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Magistrate concerned 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, Rameshwaram, 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. 6. 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/- 09/08/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, RAMESHWARAM. 2. -DO- THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, RAMANATHPURAM. 3. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. 4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANDAPAM CAMP POLICE STATION MANDAPAM, RAMANATHAPURAM. +1 CC to M/S. R.R.THAMOTHAR RAJ Advocate SR.No.26722 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.10169 of 2011 NSV/12.8.11/2P/6C Date :09/08/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/