1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT (Criminal Jurisdiction) Thursday, the Tenth day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD) No.13726 of 2011 N.RAJENDRAN :PETITIONER / ACCUSED-4 -Vs- THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, MADURAI. CR.NO.67 OF 2011. :RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. T.K.GOPALAN, Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 Cr.P.C. ORDER:The Court Made the following order:- The petitioner is the fourth accused in Crime No.67 of 2011. Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for offences under sections 120(b), 419, 468, 471 and 420 IPC, he is before this court seeking anticipatory bail. 2.According to the case of prosecution, the property in question was originally owned by one Vaithilinga Konar. He died long before leaving behind two sons. The first son had three wives. The second wife's son is one Murugesan. The main accused, in this case, are the wives of Ayyavoo. Mr.Murugesan, the son of the second wife, sold away the property to the de-facto complainant. Now, the heirs through Ayyavoo are disturbing the possession. With these allegations, the present case has been registered. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would deny all the allegations. According to him, the accused party have got title and right over the property. 4.From the narration of facts, it is crystal clear that there is some dispute in respect of title over the property. It is not as though the accused are totally strangers to the property and after all they claim through the son of the third wife of the first son of Vaithilinga Konar, whereas the de-facto https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 complainant claims through the son of the second wife of the sons of Ayyavoo Konar. Thus, there appears to be a civil dispute in respect of the title through the property. In my considered opinion, respondent police is not competent to decide the disputed question of title. It is stated that Vaithilinga Konar has executed a settlement deed in favour of Murugesan, namely, the son of the second wife Murugan. Whether the settlement is true or not is a matter to be gone into by the civil court. In such view of the matter, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, but with conditions. 5.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No:I, Madurai, on his 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 on everyday 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/- 10/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO: 1.The Judicial Magistrate No:I, Madurai. 2.-Do- Thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai. 3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 4.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Madurai. +1. CC to M/S. T.K.GOPALAN Advocate SR.No.39202. RP/15.11.2011/2P/6C. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13726/11 Date :10/11/2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/