1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT (Criminal Jurisdiction) Monday, the Nineteenth day of December Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice K.N. BASHA CRL OP(MD) No.15665 of 2011 1 P.KALIAMOORTHY 2 V.PATTU 3 V.ELANGOVAN 4 V.VEERASUBRAMANIAN :PETITIONERS / ACCUSED (RANKT NOW KNOWN) -Vs- THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANTI-LAND GRABBING WING, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, THANJAVUR. (CR.NO.48 OF 2011) :RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. M.KARUNANITHI Advocate For Respondent : MR.C.RAMESH, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. 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 under Sections 120 (B), 464, 465, 467, 468, 471 & 420 IPC in Crime No.48 of 2011 and seek anticipatory bail. 2.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been implicated in this case on the allegation that the petitioners 2 to 4/A-1 to A-3 are said to have executed power of attorney document in favour of the first petitioner/A-4 in respect of the property for which they have no right over the same. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners to 4 are the legal heirs of the original owner and they are having rights to deal with the property and as such they have executed power of attorney document in favour of the first petitioner herein. He further submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. 3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners have been implicated in this case on the allegation that the petitioners 2 to 4/A-1 to A-3 are said to have executed power of attorney document in favour of the first petitioner/A-4 in respect of the property for which they have no right over the same. He further submitted that the investigation is pending. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 5.On hearing the submissions made on either side, it is very clear that the entire allegations are borne out by records and documents namely the alleged power of attorney document said to have been executed by petitioners 2 to 4. It is claimed that they are the legal heirs of the original owner and as such they are having right to deal with the property. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant the relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 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, Thanjavur, on each of them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with one surety for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned or to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest and on further condition that the petitioners 1, 3 and 4 shall appear before the respondent police for a period of four weeks daily at 5.30 p.m., and thereafter they shall be available for interrogation as and when required and the second petitioner being a lady, she shall be available for interrogation as and when required. sd/- 19/12/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO: 1.The Judicial Magistrate NO.II, Thanjavur. 2.-Do- Thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur @ Kumbakonam. 3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 4.The Inspector of Police, Anti-Land Grabbing Wing, District Crime Branch, Thanjavur. +1CC to M/S. M.KARUNANITHI Advocate SR.No.44610. RP/22.12.2011/2P/6C. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.15665 of 2011 Date :19/12/2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/