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) No.11063 of 2011 1 P.MARAPPAN 2 RAJALINGAM 3 KANAGARAJANAN :PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NOS.1,2 & 4 -Vs- THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ARAVAKURICHI POLICE STATION, ARAVAKURICHI TALUK, KARUR DISTRICT. CR.NO.384/09 :RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT SUBBIAH :INTERVENOR (MP(MD)1/11) For Petitioner : M/S. N.SHANMUGASELVAM, Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.RAMAR, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. For Intervenor : MR.M.PETER RAMESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE. PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 Cr.P.C. ORDER:The Court Made the following order:- The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 120(b), 342, 364(A), 406, 465, 468 and 506(i) I.P.C. in Crime No.384 of 2009 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners and the defacto complainant were doing Real Estate business and even though the defacto complainant is a retired Principal of the Government Acts College, he is doing the Real Estate business in the name of his wife. He further submitted that on 05.10.2004, the defacto complainant was abducted by the petitioners, however, the complaint has been given on 02.09.2008. He further submitted that the property stands only in the name of the defacto complainant's wife and she has executed the sale deed in favour of the first petitioner on 06.01.2004. He further submitted that the defacto complainant's wife has filed a suit in O.S.No.1499 of 2004 for injunction against the first petitioner and one Ramachandran and also she has filed another suit in O.S.No.10 of 2005 for cancellation of the sale deed, dated 06.10.2004 in favour of the first petitioner and both suits are pending. He further submitted that at the verge of the marriage of the first petitioner's daughter, a false case has been foisted against them under Sections 147, 120(b), 342, 364(A), 406, 465, 468 and 506(i)I.P.C. and hence, he prays for enlargement on anticipatory bail. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor would submit that the defacto complainant was abducted by the petitioners and kept into the house of A1 and also they demanded a sum of Rs.13 Lakhs and settled for a sum of Rs.7,75,000/-. He further submitted that for that amount, the defacto complainant's wife has executed the sale deed in favour of the first petitioner on 06.10.2004 after that, the defacto complainant was released He further submitted that even though the defacto complainant has given a complainant on 02.09.2008, the police people has not registered a case and therefore, they are approaching the Court of law under Section 156(3) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Cr.P.C. and hence, case has been registered. He further submitted that after the investigation referred charge sheet has been field as a mistake of fact and therefore, the defacto complainant has filed a protest petition and the same was allowed and now the investigation is going on and hence, he prays for the dismissal of this application, 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the defacto complainant is doing Real Estate Business and after his retirement in the Education Institution, he was abducted by the petitioners for getting 1 Acre and 4 1/2 Cents, which was registered in the name of his wife. He further submitted that after the investigation, case has been closed as a mistake of fact and on the basis of the order passed by the protest petition, further investigation was ordered and now, the investigation is going on and hence, he prays for the dismissal of this application. 5.Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and also considering the fact that the petitioners and the defacto complainant were doing Real Estate business and the defacto complainant was abducted by the petitioners on 05.10.2004 and the defaco complainant has executed the sale deed in favour of the first petitioner on 06.10.2004 in respect of 1 Acre and 4 1/2 Cents, after that the defacto complainant was released and even though the case has been registered, after the investigation, which was closed as a mistake of fact and on the basis of the order passed in the protest application, further investigation has been ordered and now the investigation is going on and the occurrence has been taken place on 05.10.2004, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. 6.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur and on executing a separate 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 petitioners shall report before the Court concerned daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 7.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, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed. sd/- 08/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO: 1.The Judicial Magistrate No:II, Karur. 2.-Do- Thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate,Karur. 3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 4.The Inspector of Police, Aravakurichi Police Station, Aravakurichi Taluk, Karur District. +1CC to MR.M.PETER RAMESH KUMAR Advocate SR.No.30609. RP/12.09.2011/2P/6C. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.11063 of 2011,Date:08/09/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/