1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Second day of August Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.9778 of 2011 T.PANDIARAJAN ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED-6 Vs THE INSEPCTOR OF POLICE CHOLAVANTHAN POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT. CRIME NO.182 OF 2011. ... RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT For Petitioner : M/S.D.SHANMUGARAJA SETHUPATHI 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 petitioner filed this petition seeking for anticipatory bail for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 406, 420, 468 and 471 IPC, in Crime No.182 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is arrayed as A6 in Crime No.182 of 2011 registered under Sections 120(B), 406, 402, 468 and 471 IPC. He would further submit that the de-facto complainant is the owner of the property. He borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and mortgaged the property and subsequently, he repaid the loan amount and he also obtained a loan from the Tamil Nadu Investment Corporation by mortgaging the very same property and since he has not repaid the amount, the property was sold in auction. A6 is a successful bidder and the sale deed was executed in favour of A6 only on 31.10.2003 from that date onwards, he is in possession and patta has also been changed. Now, the false case has been registered against the petitioner and hence, the petitioner apprehends arrest and seeks anticipatory bail. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit that the property is owned by the de-facto complainant and the property has been mortgaged to TIIC when the property was taken for auction. At the time of auction the amount was paid to A6 by the de-facto complainant for participation of auction and the sale deed has been executed on 31.10.2003 and the investigation is going on and hence he seeks for dismissal of the petition. 4.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the alleged sale deed dated 31.10.2003 was executed by TIIC in favour of A6 but from 31.10.2003 to 14.07.2011, he has not taken any steps for the past eight years and now only, he gave a complaint on 15.07.2011 under various provisions of law. The documents filed by the petitioner would show that the petitioner herein has got the sale deed on 31.10.2003 and possession was taken on 20.11.2003 and 27.11.2003 and patta has also been changed in the y ear 2001, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditons. 5.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the evetn of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, and on 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, Vadipatti, and on further condition that the petitioner 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.PC scrupulously. 6.The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failng which, anticipatory bail petition stands dismissed. sd/- 02/08/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VADIPATTI 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI 3 THE INSEPCTOR OF POLICE, CHOLAVANTHAN POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT. 4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S.D.SHANMUGARAJA SETHUPATHI Advocate SR.No.25946 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.9778 of 2011 Date :02/08/2011 TR : 05.08.2011: 3p/6c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/