BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twenty Sixth day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.PALANIVELU CRL OP(MD) No.12677 of 2011 J.S.LEYRONNE MORAIS : PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.8 Vs. 1. THE STATE REP.BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ANTI LAND GRAPPING SPECIAL CELL, TRICHY. 2. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CCB POLICE STATION, TRICHY. IN CRIME NO.26 OF 2011 : RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS For Petitioner : M/S. S.PRABAKARAN for Mr.P.NATARAJAN 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/accused No.8 apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 447, 341, 365,506 (ii), 294(b), 387, 306, 420 read with 120 (b) of IPC in Crime No.26 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, he seeks anticipatory bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is the eight accused in the case. The de-facto complainant by name P.Karunanidhi along with his brothers-in-law B.Nagaraj and Kamaraj, who have been arrayed as the sixth and seventh accused in this case, jointly purchased the property with an extent of 9.33 acres on 19.06.1992 from Chellakannuammal and others. Afterwards, the de- facto complaint executed a gift deed in favour of his two sisters, namely, Parmeshwari and Rani on 05.03.2008 with respect to his one third share in the property. Thereafter, on 05.04.2008, the petitioner purchased the property mentioned above by means of a registered sale deed from the above said persons. In the mean while, on 20.03.2009, the defacto complainant executed a deed of cancellation cancelling the gift deed executed by him on 05.03.2008 by stating the reasons that the gift settlement deed which was executed by him was not satisfactory to him, that he is maintaining the property and that he is proposing to make alternative https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ arrangements. Then, he filed a suit in O.S.No.55 of 2009 on the file of the learned First Additional District Judge, Trichy, for partition and separate possession of his one third share in the suit property arraying as defendants, the sixth and seventh as accused, his sisters, Parmeswari and Rani and also this petitioner. The petitioner is the fifth defendant in the said case. The said suit is pending. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would highlight certain improbabilities available in the case of the defacto complaint that in the complaint he has mentioned that the first and second accused along with 10 others came with an aruval and wooden logs, intimidated him, took him to the office of the first accused and on 05.03.2008, at 11.00 a.m, they took him to K.K.Nagar Registrar's Office under threat and got his signatures in a separate room as if he has executed the gift deed in favour of his sisters. Thereafter, he had consulted with many persons. On 20.03.2009, on learning about the cancellation, the first and second accused created bogus documents in favour of this petitioner who is their benami. Even though the complaint would show the criminal activities against the first and second accused and other accused including this petitioner, the plaint does not disclose the above said circumstances, as per the learned counsel. He also says that the plaint is silent about the alleged threatening purported upon him for getting the gift deed. It is also argued that in the complaint the de-facto complaint had stated that earlier he gave a complaint before the police station, but no action was taken. But, the copy of the complaint was not produced before the Court. It is his further contention that whether the transaction is benami in the name of the petitioner and someother persons, can be decided in a separate civil forum and the allegation against this petitioner in the complaint is that he conspired with the other accused. 4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would oppose on the ground that the allegations would clearly show the criminal activities as against the accused and that Section 120 (B) IPC would be attracted against this petitioner and that the investigation is pending. 5. The gift deed came to existence on 05.03.2008 and on 05.04.2008, the petitioner purchased the property. After three years from the date of gift deed, the complaint has been laid alleging certain foul play on the part of the accused. It is also contended that the sisters of the defacto complaint accepted the gift deed and thereafter, they sold the property to the petitioner and hence, the revocation of gift by the cancellation deed is not legally sustainable and hence, there is no impediment to consider the bail application. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. 7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, learned Judicial Magistrate No.4, Trichy, and on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned learned Judicial Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioners 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. 8. 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, anticipatory bail petition stands dismissed. Sd/- 26/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.4, TRICHY. 2. -DO- THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TRICHY DISTRICT. 3. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ANTI LAND GRAPPING SPECIAL CELL, TRICHY. 5. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CCB POLICE STATION, TRICHY. +1 CC to M/S. P.NATARAJAN Advocate SR.No.33204 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.12677 of 2011 Date :26/09/2011 NSV/28.9.11/3P/7C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/