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) No.8948 of 2011 1 KARTHIKEYAN, 2 SASTIKUMARAN ...PETITIONERS/1ST&2ND ACCUSED Vs THE STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE TISAIYANVILLAI POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT CRIME NO. 280/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. R. ARAVIND RAJ Advocate For Respondent : Mr.A.RAMAR,Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) 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 420, 467 and 294(b), I.P.C. in Crime No.280 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 are father and son and they are the co-owners along with the de-facto complainant. A1 executed a Settlement Deed in favour of A2 and they have nothing to do with the alleged commission of offence. Hence, he prays for enlargement on anticipatory bail. 3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the grandfather of the de-facto complainant is Kandasamy and the grandfather of A3 is also Kandasamy and taking advantage of similarity in the name A1 and A2 created fabricated documents and executed a sale deed in favour of A3 and when it was questioned by the de-facto complainant he was threatened and a case has been registered under Sections 420, 467 and 294(b) IPC and the investigation is going on hence, he prays for dismissal of petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.Considering the rival submissions made on both sides, and also the facts that the alleged occurrence took place on 28.02.2011 and a case has been registered on 14.07.2011 against three persons under Sections 420, 467 and 294(b) IPC; the de- facto complainant and the petitioners are coparcener and the properties are yet to be divided and they fabricated documents and when it was questioned by the de-facto complainant, he was abused, the third accused changed the patta in his name without any authority and even though the petitioners were not arrested, they have neither interfered with the investigation nor absconded from the jurisdiction, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. 5.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, Nanguneri, Tirunelveli District, 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 , Nanguneri, Tirunelveli District 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. 6.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/- 12/08/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NANGUNERI, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT 2.DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT 3.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 4.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE TISAIYANVILLAI POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT +1. CC to M/S. R. ARAVIND RAJ Advocate SR.No.27457 rl/6c – 17.8.2011 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.8948 of 2011 Date :12/08/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/