BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Saturday, the Twenty Ninth day of October Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD) No.11613 of 2011 1 DHIKKARTHOOS 2 MRS.VIRGIN MARY 3 MRS.SUJA 4 MRS.CICILLI ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 - 4 Vs STATE REP.BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DCB POLICE STATION, NAGERCOIL, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT. CRIME NO.66/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT JOSEPH STEPHEN ... PETITIONER/INTERVENER For Petitioner : M/S. C.K.M.APPAJI Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDI, Addl.Public Prosecutor(Crl.Side) For Intervener : M/S.M.P.SENTHIL, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- Apprehending arrest, at the hands of the respondent police, the petitioners, who are the accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.66 of 2011 on the file of the respondent Police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 120(b), 420, 468, 385, 506(i) of I.P.C, have come forward with this Petition seeking anticipatory bail. 2.According to the case of the prosecution, the petitioners have created some forged documents in respect of the property comprised in S.No.282/1ABC-2B-1B of Elzudesam Village, Kanyakumari District. It is further submitted that the possession is however in the hands of the de facto complainant. But the accused are trying to dispose it. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have got right over the property. He would further submit that the petitioners are not trying to dispose of the property by force and it is not true that the de facto complainant is in possession continuously. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.Today, the second petitioner Mrs.Virginmary, has filed an affidavit to the effect that the possession may continue with the de facto complainant. Though the petitioners are legally entitled for possession, the petitioners would not resort to any illegal or forcible methods to restore the possession of property. Her statement is recorded. 5.I have considered the above submissions. In view of the rival claim over the property and also considering the affidavit filed by the second petitioner to the effect that the petitioners/accused will not disturb the possession of the de facto complainant, except by legal means, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, with the following conditions. 6.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.2, Kuzhithurai, on each 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition the petitioners shall report before the respondent police every day at 10.30 a.m for a period of four weeks. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C scrupulously. Sd/- 29/10/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II KUZHITHURAI 2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DCB POLICE STATION, NAGERCOIL, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT. 3 THE ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI +1. CC to M/S. C.K.M.APPAJI Advocate SR.No.36995 ssk/02.11.2011 /5c -2p/- ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.11613 of 2011 Date :29/10/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/