BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Twelfth day of August Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) Nos.10198, 10199 and 10295 of 2011 MURUGESAN S/O. PITCHAI NADAR, TAMILSELVI ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 3 IN CRL.OP.NO.10198/2011 MURUGESAN S/O. VEL NADAR ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 IN CRL.OP.NO.10199/2011 G.RAMESHBASKAR ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.10 IN CRL.OP.NO.10295/2011 Vs STATE REP.BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, NAGERCOIL, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT. CRIME NO.54/2011 .. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT IN ALL THE PETITIONS For Petitioners in Crl.OP.Nos.10198 & 10199 : M/S. S.PALANIVELAYUTHAM Advocate For Petitioner in Crl.OP.No.10295 : M/S. T.LAJAPATHI ROY Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.RAMAR, Government Advocate(Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners are arrayed as A1, A2, A3 and A10 and the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.10199 of 2011, was arrested on 03.08.2011 and the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.10198 of 2011 were on 26.07.2011 and the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.10295 of 2011, was arrested on 26.07.2011 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 468, 471, 419, 420 and 506(i) I.P.C., in Crime No.54 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek bail. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in both the applications A1 and A3 are the husband and wife and a false case has been foisted against them. He would further submit that originally the property belongs to one Subramani, who is the grand- father of A8, he executed a power of attorney in favour of A9 and A9 sold the same to A10 and the third accused has purchased the property https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ from A10 on 19.04.2011, he is a bonafide purchaser for value and it is not a land grabbing case. He would further submit that A1 is the husband of A3 and A2 is only his friend and they are nothing to do with the alleged commission of transaction. He would further submit that during petition enquiry stage, he moved an application for anticipatory bail, it was represented that no case has been registered and hence, the application was disposed of and now, the case has been registered on 26.07.2011 and they were arrested on the same day and the investigation is considerably over and hence, he prays for enlargement on bail. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.O.P. (MD).No10295 of 2011 would submit that the petitioner is arrayed as A10, he purchased the property from A9, A9 purchased the property from A8, who is the power of attorney executed by the true owner in turn A10 sold the property to A3 so, he is nothing to do with the alleged commission of offence. He would further submit that if he purchased the property from A9, there will be mutation of revenue records and the investigation is considerably over and hence, he prays for enlargement on bail. 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.side) would submit that A1 and A3 are doing real estate business and they want to purchase the property from A8 since he is not willing to sold his property to A1 and A3, but they in one way or other get the power of attorney and sold out to A9, A9 sold the same to A10, A10 sold the same to A3, A8 & a10 are not third parties they are the henchmen of A1 and the ultimate goal has been achieved by them and the investigation is going on and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application. 5.Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and also considering the fact that the alleged occurrence has been taken place on 19.07.2011 and a complaint has been given and obtaining a report from legal expert, a case has been registered on 26.07.2011 against 10 persons for the offeces under Sections 120(b), 468, 471, 419, 420 and 506(i) I.P.C and A3 is the wife of A1 and admittedly A3 has purchased the property from A10 on 19.04.2011 and A10 purchased the property from A9 on 18.09.2010 and whether the petitioners are doing real estate business has to be decided only at the time of trial and this Court has to consider whether there is any prima facie case is made out or not and as per the version of the learned counsel for the petitioners and they are nothing to do with the alleged commission of offence and all the evidence borned by records and even though, they were arrested, no police custody has been sought for and the investigation is going on, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail and 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, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District and on further condition that the petitioners shall stay at Madurai and appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. Sd/- 12/08/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I NAGERCOIL 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTATE KANYAKUMARI AT NAGERCOIL 3 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I MADURAI 4 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTATE MADURAI 5 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, NAGERCOIL, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT. 6 THE ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 7 THE OFFICER IN CHARGE DISTRICT JAIL, NAGERCOIL 8 THE OFFICER IN CHARGE SUB JAIL, THAKKALAI 9 THE OFFICER IN CHARGE SUB JAIL, NAGERCOIL +2.CC to M/S. S.PALANIVELAYUTHAM Advocate SR.No.27389 +1.CC to M/S. T.LAJAPATHI ROY Advocate SR.No.27496 ssk/12.08.2011 /13c -3p/- ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) Nos.10198, 10199 and 10295 of 2011 Date :12/08/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/