BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Eighteenth day of August Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.10548 of 2011 1. ARICHANDRAN 2. NANDHAGOPAL 3. RAMANATHAN 4. SARAVANAKUMAR 5. MUTHUKARUNGU 6. RANGASAMY : PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1,3 & 5 to 8 Vs. THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PARTHIBANOOR POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT. (CRIME NO.72 OF 2011) : RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. P.ARUN JAYATRAM Advocate For Respondent : M/S. A.RAMAR Additional Public Prosecutor For Petitioner : M/S. D.SENTHIL Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners/Accused Nos.1,3 & 5to8 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 447, 506(ii), 420, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. in Crime No.72 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were charged under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 447, 506(ii), 420, 468 and 471 of I.P.C and the case has been registered against eight persons and already A2 and A4 were arrested and enlarged on bail. He further submitted that A1 to A3 are brothers and the property in dispute has been belonging to their Father namely, Muthalagu and that has been evidenced by Patta Pass Book and A2 executed the forged power of attorney in favour of A4 and consequently, A4 executed the sale deed in favour of A5 on 15.2.2011 and thereafter, A1 to A3 executed the sale deed in favour of A6 and A7 and they apprehend for arrest and they come forward with this application and prays for enlargement on anticipatory bail. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the intervener submitted that originally, the defacto complainant purchased the property from the said Abdul Azees, who was appointed by the original land owner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ one Kulbushan Singh Chadha as a power agent and after purchasing the property, all the documents are transferred in the name of the wife of the defacto complainant and there was mutation of revenue records and from the date onwards, she was in possession. He further submitted that after her purchase, A1 to A3 sold the property to A5 and A6 without any right over the property and hence, the complaint has been given and they already filed two applications which were dismissed and there is no changing circumstances and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.Side) would submit that A2 executed the sale deed in favour of A4 and again, A1 to A3 executed the sale deed in favour of A5 and A6 without right over the property and A1 to A8 threatened the defacto complainant and trespassed into the property and hence, the complaint has been given and investigation is going on and after the dismissal of the earlier applications, there is no changing circumstances and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application. 5. Considering the rival submissions made by both sides, on a perusal documents, it could be seen that the property originally belonging to one Muthalagu and the said Muthalagu sold the property to Kulbhushan Singh Chadha and he executed the power of attorney in favour of Abdul Azeez and he sold the property in favour of the wife of the defacto complainant namely, D.C.Kavitha and she is in possession and since, the petitioners herein trespassed into the property and made criminal intimidation and created the documents without any valid title, the complaint has been given and after the dismissal of the earlier application, another application has been filed and that was dismissed as withdrawn and there is no changing circumstances, hence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners and I do not find any merit in this application and the same is dismissed. sd/- 18/08/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. 2. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PARTHIBANOOR POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT. +1 CC to M/S.D.SENTHIL Advocate SR.No.28093 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.10548 of 2011 Date :18/08/2011 NSV/22.8.11/2P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/