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.13578 of 2011 ARIKRISHNA PERUMAL ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.1 Vs THE STATE REP. BY ITS THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, NAGERCOIL,KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT. IN CRIME NO.73 OF 2011. ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. C.SANKAR PRAKASH Advocate For Respondent : M/S. K.S.DURAIPANDI Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.73 of 2011, on the file of the respondent police for offences under Sections 420, 468, 506(i) IPC. He was arrested on 15.09.2011. He has come up with this Criminal Original Petition seeking bail. 2. According to the case of prosecution, the land comprised in Re-Survey No.110/1, at Vembanoor Village, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District belongs to the de facto complainant – Thayammal. The petitioner and other accused have got no right whatsoever over the same. But, contrary to the same, the petitioner and other accused have created a partition deed on 06.06.2008, thereby partitioning the said property among themselves. The said act amounts to offences under Sections 420, 468, 506(i) IPC. With these allegations, the present case has been registered. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would deny the above allegations. According to him, the above property was originally owned by one Arumugakan Nadar. The petitioner and other accused as well as the de facto complainant are the legal heirs through the sons of the said Arumugakan Nadar. It is only in such capacity, the said partition deed was executed among the legal heirs. Thereafter, the de facto complainant issued a suit notice on 20.10.2008, wherein she has stated that she has got a share in the said suit property. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the dispute is civil in nature. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor is not in a position to refute the pre-suit notice. 5. A perusal of the said notice would go to show that it is not as though the petitioner is a stranger to the said property and he is also one of the sharers, and therefore, Prima facie, I am satisfied that the creation of documents cannot be stated to be with a view to cheat anybody. 6. In such view of the matter, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, but with stringent conditions. 7. In the result, this petition is ordered and bail is granted to the petitioner on the following conditions. i) The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a likesum to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil; and ii) The petitioner shall appear before the respondent police for a period of four weeks daily at 10.00 A.M., without fail. sd/- 13/10/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I NAGERCOIL 2 -DO-THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE KANYAKUMARI AT NAGERCOIL 3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 4 THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, NAGERCOIL, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT. 5. THE OFFICER INCHARGE, SUB JAIL, NAGERCOIL +1. CC to M/S. C.SANKAR PRAKASH Advocate SR.No.35536 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13578 of 2011 Date :13/10/2011 SMA/14.10.2011/7C/2P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/