1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Eighth day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) Nos.11838, 11860 and 11364 of 2011 DR.NAVANEETHAKRISHNAN .. PETITIONER/ACCUSED-3 IN CRL.OP.No.11838/2011 S.ANNAMALAI .. PETITIONER/ACCUSED-5 IN CRL.OP.No.11860/2011 R.SANKARI .. PETITIONER/ACCUSED-2 IN CRL.OP.No.11364/2011 Vs STATE REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, MADURAI CITY (CR. NO.70 OF 2011) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT IN ALL THE CASES For Petitioner : M/S. S.RAVI for MR.N.R.ELANGO, Advocate in Crl.OP(MD)No.11838 of 2011 M/S P. NATARAJAN Advocate in Crl.OP(MD)No.11860 of 2011 M/S T. LAJAPATHI ROY Advocate in Crl.OP(MD)No.11364 of 2011 For Respondent : MR. A.RAMAR, Additional Public Prosecutor in all the cases PETITIONS FOR BAIL UNDER SEC.439 CR.P.C. IN CRL.OP(MD)NOS.11838 & 11860 OF 2011 AND PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL UNDER SEC.438 CR.P.C IN CRL.OP(MD)NO.11364 OF 2011 ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.11838 of 2011 is arrayed as A3 and he was arrested on 22.08.2011 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 365, 368, 384, 420, 477(A), 166, 506(ii) I.P.C. r/w Section 120(B) IPC and the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.11860 of 2011 arrayed as A5 and he was arrested on 21.08.2011 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 365, 368, 384, 420, 477(A), 166, 120(b) and 506(ii) IPC in Crime No.70 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek bail. 2. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.11364 of 2011 is arrayed as A2 and he apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 365, 368, 384, 420 and 506(ii) IPC in Crime No.70 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that on the basis of the complainant given on 21.08.2011, the case has been registered under the above said Sections. The present petitioners A3 and A5 were arrested on 22.08.2011 and 21.08.2011 respectively. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that A1 and A2 are husband and wife and A1, A2 and the de-facto complainant's brothers and de-facto complainant entered into a partnership firm to run an ENT hospital, for that they purchased a land and constructed a hospital and running the hospital from 23.02.2009. In the year 2009, the de-facto complainant suspected that A1, who is running this ENT hospital misappropriated the amount. Hence in the Month of December, 2009 the wife of the de-facto complainant has returned to Indian from Singapore and questioned about the activities of A1. So, A1 wanted to purchase the share of de-facto complainant and his brothers and over phone he contacted the de-facto complainant and told that he is ready to purchase the share of the de-facto complainant and his two brothers. On 04.01.2010, it is alleged that A1 to A3 took the wife of the de-facto complainant to A4 Office and forced her to execute the sale deed. They also threatened the de-facto complainant over phone and forced him to execute sale deed in their favour. On 09.01.2010, the de-facto complainant returned to India. On 12.01.2010 they threatened the de-facto complainant and his wife to enter into a sale agreement on behalf of his two brothers. It is alleged that A5 -Deputy Inspector General of Registration prepared the sale agreement. 4. The case of the petitioners is that in pursuant of the sale agreement dated 12.01.2010, two brothers who are residing in USA returned to India on 14.05.2010 and all brothers i.e. the de-facto complainant and his two brothers executed the sale deed on 17.05.2010 in favour of A1 and A2 after the receipt of Rs.1.43 Crores. 5. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the main allegation in the FIR is that the value of the property is mentioned as Rs.5.00 Crores, but it has been purchased only for Rs.1.43 Crores. He further submitted that even though the sale transaction has been completed on 17.05.2010, the complaint has been given only on 21.08.2011. There is a delay in preferring the complaint. He further submitted that the de-facto complainant is a Software Engineer working in Singapore and his two brothers are working as Software Engineer in USA. Till 21.08.2011, no complaint has been preferred even though the sale deed executed on 17.05.2010. Because of political vendetta a false case has been foisted against the petitioners. He further submitted that except A2 all other accused were arrested and the interrogation is over and all the transaction are bourne out by records and all the records were seized by the investigation agency, A3 is aged about 75 years and he is in custody more than 19 days and hence the petitioners A3 and A5 seek for bail and A2 seeks for anticipatory bail. 6. Refuting the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the de-facto complainant and his two brothers, A1 and A2 purchased the property of 9 cents of land at Arappalayam and constructed the hospital in the name and style of Shri ENT Hospital and that the hospital has been run by A1 and A2. Since the de-facto complainant went on abroad, A1 and A2 not submitted the proper accounts. Hence, the de-facto complainant and two brothers given the power in favour of the de-facto complainant's wife to verify and audit the accounts of Shri ENT Hospital. During verification of the accounts the de-facto complainant's wife found that there is a misappropriation of Rs.1.28 Crores, which was questioned by the de-facto complainant's wife. For that A1 and A2 threatened the de-facto https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 complainant's wife and as a result of that she executed the document in favour of A1 and A2 and left from India. For that, the de-facto complainant's wife gave the complaint before the Karimedu Police Station. Then, A1 and A2 took the de-facto complainant's wife to A3 house where she was threatened. Then, A1 and A2 took the de-facto complainant's wife to A4 office, who is a politically influenced person holding important post in a political party. In his office, the de-facto complainant and his wife were threatened to execute the agreement in favour of A1 for Rs.1.43 Crores. At that time, A1 to A5 were present and the sale agreement was prepared by A5. In pursuance of sale agreement executed on 12.01.2010 under threat, A1 left Singapore. Then A4 called the de-facto complainant and executed the sale deed. In pursuance of that on 17.05.2010 the sale deed executed for Rs.1.43 Crores in favour of A1 and A2. The worth of the land and building is about Rs.5.00 Crores, but the de-facto complainant and his brothers were given only Rs.1.43 Crores. The misappropriated amount by A1 is Rs.1.28 Crores and the total loss to the de-facto complainant is Rs.4.85 Crores. Only under the threat, the sale deed has been obtained by A1 to A4. He further submitted that the delay for giving complaint as averred in the complaint by stating that A4 is closely associated with a Central Minister. The investigation is in initial stage and hence he seeks for dismissal of the petitions. 7. Considering the rival submissions made both sides. Admitted facts are as follows: A1 is the wife of A2. The de-facto complainant and his two brothers of A1 and A2 are entered into partnership and each entitled 20% share. Admittedly, that the de-facto complainant is a Software Engineer working in Singapore and his two brothers are working as Software Engineers in USA and they have purchased the property of 9 cents land at Arapalayam along with A1 and A2 and they constructed the hospital under the name and style of Shri ENT Hospital, which was run by A1 and A2 on behalf of the partnership. The case of the prosecution is that A1 has not submitted the accounts properly and hence, the de-facto complainant and his two brothers authorised the wife of the defacto complainant to verify the accounts. Hence, she came to India and after verification, she found that Rs.1.28 Crores was misappropriated by A1 and that has been questioned by her and then the problem arose. The further case of the prosecution is that A1 and A2 threatened the de-facto complainant's wife to execute the sale agreement and release the share in the partnership firm in the Month of December 2009. On 04.01.2010, the de-facto complainant also returned to India. A1 and A2 took the de-facto complainant to A3 house and then they threatened them to executed the sale agreement and they also took the de-facto complainant's wife to A4 office and they also threatened the de-facto complainant over phone for execution of sale agreement. The de-facto complainant returned to Singapore only on 09.01.2010 and on 12.01.2010 the sale agreement entered into between the de-facto complainant and A1 and A2. But the case of the prosecution is that the document has been prepared by A5 who is Deputy Inspector General of Registration, under threat. But admittedly, the sale deed was executed on 17.05.2010 by the de-facto complainant and his two brothers who are worldly wise persons and admittedly after the receipt of Rs.1.43 crores. Now, the accused caused a loss of Rs.4.85 Crores, i.e. misappropriated amount of Rs.1.28 Crores plus land value of Rs.3.57 Crores. It is true, admittedly, the complaint has been given on 21.08.2011 and the very next day the accused A5 and A3 were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. The reasons alleged by the petitioner for the delay in preferring the complaint is that A4 is a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 politically influenced person and he is very close associate of a Central Minister so he has not in a position to give a complaint. But, admittedly even now the Central Minister is in power and all the documents from the beginning of the partnership firm till the purchase of the property on 17.05.2010 are borne out of records. Since the petitioners/A3 and A5 were arrested and they were in custody for more than 19 days and the interrogation is over and some of the registered documents were already seized, so, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioners/A3 and A5 with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioners/A3 and A5 are ordered to be released on bail on 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 No.I, Madurai and on further condition that the petitioners/A3 and A5 shall report before the Court concerned daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. 8. Considering the above facts and circumstances, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/A2 with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioner/A2 is ordered to be released on bail in the event of her arrest or on her appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai and the petitioner shall execute 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/A2 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. 9. The petitioner/A2 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/- 08/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, MADURAI 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI 3 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, MADURAI 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, MADURAI CITY 5 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. S.RAVI Advocate SR.No.30452 +1. CC to M/S. P.NATARAJAN Advocate SR.No.30450 +1. CC to M/S. T.LAJAPATHI ROY, Advocate SR.No.30437 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) Nos.11838, 11860 & 11364 of 2011 Date :08/09/2011 TR : 09.09.2011: 4p/9c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/