BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Twenty Fifth day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.15009 of 2011 1. KODEESWARAN 2. M.GIRI RAJA 3. JAYARAMAN 4. KANAGARAJ 5. THANGAVEL ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 5 Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALANI TOWN POLICE STATION, PALANI, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. IN CR.NO. 218/2010 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. S.RAMU 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/A1 to A5 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 109, 465, 468, 471 and 420 I.P.C. in crime No.218 of 2010, on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2.Heard Mr.S.Ramu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.K.S.Duraipandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State. 3.According to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the petitioners are ranked as A1 to A5 in the complaint given by the defacto complainant. He would further submit that the property was actually belonged to the 1st petitioner, which was purchased when he was a minor, through the sale deed dated 16.09.1999 and however, the said property was sold, without any authority, by the father of the 1st petitioner showing the 1st petitioner also as one of the parties, which is not valid in law. 4.He would further submit in his argument that the age of the petitioner, as per the record sheet registered in the school, was 20.12.1997 and he was not a major person on the date of the sale, said to have been executed by the father of this petitioner. He would further submit that the said sale in favour of the defacto complainant is a void one and therefore, the right in the property is still with the 1st petitioner alone and therefore, he is entitled to execute the power deed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ or sale agreement or sale deed in favour of any person. Further he would submit that when there is a bonafide dispute in respect of the civil right over the property, there cannot be any criminality in the complaint given by the defacto complainant. 5.He would further submit that they are having permanent root in the town and the society and therefore there is no question of any abconding from the clutches of law. Further he would submit that A2 was given with power by the 1st petitioner and in pursuance of the said power, A2 entered in to a sale agreement, in which the petitioners 4 and 5 are the attestors and the validity of the said exercise has to be determined by the competent Civil Court and the petitioners are therefore, having prima facie case for the grant of anticipatory bail. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the sale agreement was cancelled in between the parties. 6.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the 1st petitioner has joined with the father and executed the sale deed in favour of the defacto complainant in respect of 4,387-1/2 square feet i.e. almost 10 cents and now the 1st petitioner granted power to the 2nd respondent in respect of the same property and in turn, the 2nd accused has entered into the sale agreement with an active collusion of A4 and 5, in respect of the said property. 7.He would further submit that the investigation is offing and it is a clear case of cheating in respect of the property and therefore, the petitioners cannot be granted anticipatory bail. 8.Considering the submissions made on either side, I could see that the claim of the petitioners is that the 1st petitioner was the sole owner of the property and the said property was sold by his father, showing his age as major even during his minority. He would claim that the transaction held during his minority is not valid and therefore, the ownership is still continuing with him, and therefore, the transaction had with A2 and the transaction of sale agreement by the 2nd accused with 3rd accused are not tainted with any illegality and therefore, the complaint is not sustainable. All these things have to be gone into in the investigation by the respondent police. The criminality has to be ascertained as to the execution of sale deeds and other aspect regarding the minority of the 1st petitioner during investigation and at the time of filing charge sheet. Moreover, the fact that the entitlement of the property of the 1st petitioner and whether the transaction had during the alleged minority is true, has to be gone into and therefore, I could find some civil nature is attached with the dispute. 9.In such circumsatances, this Court finds that there is a prima facie for granting anticipatory bail. Accordingly granted. However, the power deed executed by the 1st accused in favour of the 2nd accused shall not be proceeded further, till such time any further orders from this Court or from any competent civil Court, is passed. 10.Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail, in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the Judicial Magistrate, Palani, 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, Palani, and on further condition that the petitioners should appear before the respondent police as and when required. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under section 438 Cr.P.C., scrupulously. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 11.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, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed. sd/- 25/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PALANI. 2. -DO- THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL. 3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALANI TOWN POLICE STATION, PALANI, DINDIGUL. 4. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. S.RAMU Advocate SR.No.41506 SR : 29.11.2011 : 3P/6C ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.15009 of 2011 Date :25/11/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/