BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Second day of December Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.15249 of 2011 1. P.K. SIVAKUMAR 2. V. BALAKRISHNAN ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.8 & 9 Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUNNEERPALLAM POLICE STATIN, TIRUNELVELI, CRIME NO.444 OF 2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. T.A.EBEBEZER Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAI PANDIAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) 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 offence punishable under Sections 467 and 468 of IPC in Crime No.444 of 2011, on the file of the respondent police. They have approached this Court for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure. 2. Heard Mr.T.A.Ebebezer, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.K.S.Durai Pandian, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit in his argument that the petitioners have been arrayed as A-8 and A-9 and the allegations against them is that the petitioners have purchased the property knowing full well that the property did not belong to the vendors of the petitioners, namely, A-1 to A-7 and have sold the property to the A-10 to A-16 and thereby committed an offence under Sections 467 and 468 of IPC. He would further submit in his argument that the petitioners have bone fide purchased the property from the vendors A-1 to A-7 and after asserting the title of the said accused persons 1 to 7 and the de-facto complainant has filed a suit in respect of the disputed property against the petitioners before the Additional Special Judge, Tirunelveli and the said suit is pending. He would in his argument that the other accused persons have not been impleaded as parties. He would further submit in his argument that the petitioners have also sold the property to the A-10 to A-16 and in the such circumstances, the petitioners have acted bond fide and there is no criminal intention on their part. Moreover, the dispute has to be settled by the Civil Court in the suit pending before the Additional Special Judge, Tirunelveli. He would also submit that the petitioners are having permanent residence and root in the society and therefore, he would request for the grant of anticipatory bail. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in her argument that the petitioners have got specific overt tact of buying the property from A-1 to A-7 with intention to commit the offences under Sections 467 and 468 and have also sold the property to A-10 to A-16 and therefore, there is a criminality found in and if for any reason, this https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners, suitable conditions may be passed for the secured presence of the petitioners. 5. Considering the submissions made on both sides, I could see that the petitioners have purchased the property from A-1 to A-7 and immediately sold the same to A-10 to A-16. Admittedly there is a case pending on the file of the Additional Special Judge, Tirunelveli in respect of the suit property filed by the de-facto complainant against the petitioners. Now the disputed properties are not in the hands of the petitioners. It is said to have been sold to A-10 to A-16. However, the dispute in respect of civil right should be decided by the Civil Court. At the same time, the criminality has to be ascertained during the investigation and if so to be stated in the charge sheet. 6. In the said circumstances, the petitioners are not found to be in possession of the property and therefore, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to all the petitioners, of course, subject to certain stringent conditions. 7. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail, in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the Judicial Magistrate concerned on executing a separate 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 No.V, Tirunelveli, and on further condition that the petitioners shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders for the purpose of interrogation. 8. The petitioners shall appear before the Magistrate concerned within a period of 15 days, failing which, the anticipatory bail granted shall stand automatically cancelled. sd/- 02/12/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.V, TIRUNELVELI. 2. -DO- THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TIRUNELVELI. 3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUNNEERPALLAM POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI. 4. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. T.A.EBEBEZER Advocate SR.No.42790 SR : 08.12.2011 : 2P/6C ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.15249 of 2011 Date :02/12/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/