BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Eighteenth day of October Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD) No.13284 of 2011 1 P.K.GOVINDAN 2 S.LAKSHMANAN 3 G.MURALIDHARAN 4 G.BALAJI ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED Vs THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT. CRIME NO.26/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT FOR PETITIONER : M/S.M.G.HARIKRISHNAN ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDI ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR INTERVENOR : MR.V.SANAKARANARAYANAN ADVOCATE PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL UNDER SEC. 438 CR.P.C. ORDER : THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER :- The petitioners are accused in Crime No.26 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police for offences under Section 420 IPC. Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent, the petitioners have come up with this petition seeking anticipatory bail. 2.According to the case of prosecution, the first petitioner is the father of the other petitioners. It is alleged that the first petitioner owned property in question. It is further alleged that in the year 1983, the first petitioner sold away the said property to three persons. Thereafter the purchasers have been owning the said property and have been in possession. While so, in the year 2011, the first petitioner has executed a settlement deed in favour of the petitioners 2 to 4, which is according to the de-facto complainant amounts to cheating. 3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would reiterate the above allegations, which are found in the case records. 4.The de-facto complainant has been permitted to intervene in this matter. The learned counsel for the intervenor would submit that though the property was sold in the year 1983 with a view to create a cloud in the property, a settlement deed has been executed by the first petitioner in favour of the petitioners 2 and 3. 5.But the learned counsel for the petitioners would stoutly deny the above allegations. According to him, the first petitioner is an old man aged 82 years. He has been permanently residing the Chennai. He would further submit that in the year 1983, the de-facto complainant, who happened to be his brother's own son, under the premise that it was only https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ a power of attorney approached the first petitioner and believing the same, the first petitioner signed. He would further submit that at that time, he did not know what he was signing was the sale deed. He would further deny that though the document is said to have been executed, in the year 1983 onwards, patta has not been transferred in the name of the purchasers. The petitioners have been residing at Chennai all through. This according to him, the case has been falsely foisted. 6.I have considered the above submissions. 7.Having regard to the close relationship between the parties, namely, the de-facto complainant is the brother's son of the first accused and having regard to the fact that the petitioners are residing all along in Chennai from the year 1985 onwards, besides the fact that there is a dispute regarding the genuineness of the sale deeds made in the year 1983 and also the age of the first petitioner, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, but with conditions. 6.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivagangai, on 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioner shall report before the respondent police every day at 10.30 a.m. for a period of four weeks. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. sd/- 18/10/2011 / TRUE COPY / TO Sub-Assistant Registrar 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SIVAGANGAI. 2 DO-THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SIVAGANGAI. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, SIVAGANGAI. 4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1 CC TO M/S.M.G.HARIKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE SR.NO.35822. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13284 of 2011 Date :18/10/2011 2/6C RPB : 20.10.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/