BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twenty Ninth day of August Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) Nos.9386 & 9465 of 2011 M.UDAYAKUMAR : PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 IN CRL OP(MD) No.9386 of 2011 V.S.SOODAMANI : PETITIONER/1st ACCUSED IN CRL OP(MD) No.9465 of 2011 Vs. THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLCIE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, IN CRIME NO.44/2011, MADURAI DISTRICT. : RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT IN BOTH THE PETITIONS For Petitioner : M/S. M.SUBASH BABU Advocate IN CRL OP(MD) No.9386 of 2011 For Petitioner : M/S. VEERA KATHIRAVAN Advocate IN CRL OP(MD) No.9465 of 2011 For Respondent : Mr. A.RAMAR Additional Public Prosecutor IN BOTH THE PETITIONS PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 109,406,420,323,294(b) and 506(i) I.P.C r/w 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, in Crime No.44 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were arrayed as A1 and A2 in Crime No.44 of 2011 under Sections 120(b), 109,406,420,323,294(b) and 506(i) I.P.C r/w 3(1) of TNPPDL Act. He further submits that the case has been registered against the six persons and the alleged occurrence took place on 30.09.2007 but the complaint was given only on 23.05.2011 and they are in possession of the property. 3. The case of the prosecution is that A3 and A4 have approached the de-facto complaint to got the power of attorney in respect of 86 cents owned by Subburam worth about Rs.36.25 Lakhs. A5 has already been enlarged on anticipatory bail. He further submits that the de- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ facto complainant entered into a sale agreement with the real owner of 40 Acres and paid Rs.25,00,000/-. The petitioners have nothing to do with the transaction and they are having transaction only with regard to 85 cents. Since the occurrence took place on 30.09.2007, he prays for their enlargement on anticipatory bail. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the de- facto complainant is the Auditor and he is doing real estate business and he has entered into a sale agreement with the real owner of 40 acres of land near Airport and paid a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- and at that time A3 and A4 approached the de-facto complainant and prevented the de-facto complainant to execute the power of attorney in favour of A5 on 15.05.2007 in respect of 100 acres even though A5 was introduced by A3 and A4 but without paying the amount, they got the sale agreement in favour of A3 and A4 gave a cheque for Rs.1,05,000/-. At that time of issuance of cheque, it was stated that it should be presented after getting information from A4. The petitioners are powerful persons and he has no other option but to execute the power of attorney. But, he paid only Rs.1,05,000/- as advance and fixed the rate at Rs.15,5000/- per cent for 40 acres and 64 cents totally Rs.1.04 Crores. A5 was introduced by A3 and A4 who is relative of A2; A5 wanted to purchase 100 acres and he paid Rs.4,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- in two occasions and on 15.10.2007, even though the de-facto complainant was ready to execute the power of attorney in favour of A5, that was prevented by A1 to A4 and made the de-facto complainant to execute the power of attorney in favour of A1 and A2. In addition to that, the de-facto complainant was in possession of 86 cents. The de-facto complainant herein paid Rs.38,25,000/- to Subburam, the owner of 86 cents and as this Subburam executed the document in favour of A3 only under the compulsion of A1 and A2 and the investigation is going on and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application. He further submits that A3 and A5 were arrested and enlarged on anticipatory bail and totally six accused in this case and A6 was arrested and remanded in judicial custody and detained under Act 14 and A4 is absconding. 5. On perusal of FIR, it is seen that the complaint has been registered on 23.05.2011 under Sections 120(b), 109,406,420, 323,294 (b) and 506(i) I.P.C r/w 3(1) of TNPPDL Act. A1 and A2 are the friends of A3 and A4. The de-facto complainant one Amarnath is admittedly an Auditor and is doing the real estate business. As per the version of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who is entered into an sale agreement with a various land owners in respect of 40 acres of land around Airport and he paid Rs.25,00,000/- and obtained a sale agreement. A1, A2 and A3 as they are politically influenced person, they want to purchase the property and they introduced A5 to the de-facto complainant. A5 wanted to purchase 100 acres of land for business purpose, in turn, he paid Rs.4,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- on two occasions, totally Rs.9,00,000/-. The de- facto complainant agreed to execute the power of attorney in favour of A5. Even though A5 was introduced by A3 and A4 they compelled the de-facto complainant to execute the power of attorney in favour of A1 to A4. Thereupon, the de-facto complainant had not executed the power of attorney to A5. In pursuance the power of attorney which has been executed, at that time cheque for Rs.50,00,000/- has been given by A4. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. As per the version of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the cheque was issued with the direction, not present the cheque unless he was directed to present the cheque for encahsment Admittedly, the case has been registered under Sections 120(b), 109,406,420, 323,294(b) and 506(i) I.P.C r/w 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, but on the date of occurrence, no complaint has been given and no document shows that they treated for their injury sustained and the case has been registered under various provisions of Act. As per the version of FIR, they have stated that those things happened in the year 2009, but admittedly, no steps have been taken to register the case. But all the transaction are borne by registered document. In such circumstances, that can be decided only in the appropriate forums Even though the petitioners A1 and A2 were not arrested, they neither interfered with the investigation nor absconded from the jurisdiction. Hence, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. 7. 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.1, Madurai, 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.1, Madurai, 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. 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/- 29/08/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.1, MADURAI. 2. -DO- THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI DISTRICT. 3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, MADURAI DISTRICT. 4. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1 CC to M/S. M.SUBASH BABU Advocate SR.No.29480 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.9386 of 2011 & 9465 of 2011 Date :29/08/2011 NSV/30.8.11/3P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/