BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Thirteenth day of October Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD) No.13589 of 2011 PAUL RAJ ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.2 Vs THE STATE REP. BY ITS TEH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, NAGERCOIL, CR NO. 73/2011 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. C.SANKAR PRAKASH Advocate For Respondent : M/S. K.S.DURAIPANDI Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who is an accused in Crime No.73 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police for alleged offences under Sections 420, 468, 506(i) IPC of the Indian Penal Code, has come forward with the present petition seeking for anticipatory bail. 2. According to the case of prosecution, the land comprised in Re-survey No.110/1 at Vembanoor Village, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District, belongs to the de facto complainant – Thayammal. The petitioner and other accused have got no right whatsoever over the same. But, contrary to the same, the petitioner and the other accused have created a partition deed on 06.06.2008, thereby partitioning the said property among themselves. The said act amounts to offences under Sections 420, 468, 506(i) IPC. With these allegations, the present case has been registered. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would deny the above allegations. According to him, the above property was originally owned by one Arumugakan Nadar. The petitioner and other accused as well as the de facto complainant are the legal heirs through the sons of the Arumugakan Nadar. It is only in such capacity, the said petition deed was executed among the legal heirs. Thereafter, the de facto complainant issued a suit notice on 20.10.2008, wherein she has stated that se has got a share in the said suit property. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the dispute is civil in nature. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor is not in a position to refute the pre-suit notice. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. A perusal of the said notice would go to show that it is not as though the petitioner is a stranger to the said property. He is also one of the sharers, and therefore, prima facie, I am satisfied that the creation of documents cannot be stated to be with a view to cheat anybody. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the co-accused was granted bail by this Court today in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13578 of 2011. 6. Having regard to the above, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, but with conditions. 7. 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, Nagercoil, 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 appear before the respondent police for a period of four weeks everyday at 10.00 A.M, without fail. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. sd/- 13/10/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, NAGERCOIL 2 -DO-THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE KANYAKUMARI AT NAGERCOIL 3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 4 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, NAGERCOIL +1. CC to M/S. C.SANKAR PRAKASH Advocate SR.No.35537 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13589 of 2011 Date :13/10/2011 SMA/14.10.2011/6C/2P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/