1 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.13637 of 2011 S. PAKKIARAJ ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 Vs STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE NANGUNERI POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT CR NO. 278/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. R.ALAGUMANI Advocate For Respondent : MR. K.S.DURAI PANDIAN, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner is one of the accused in Crime No.278 of 2011 for the offences under Sections 418, 419, 468, 471, 420, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC. Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police, he is before this Court seeking anticipatory bail. 2.According to the case of prosecution the land in question was owned by one Ramamoorthy Naidu. Subsequently, the second accused was introduced by the petitioner to the de-facto complainant as Ramamoorthy Naidu, whereas the second accused is not the real Ramamoorthy Naidu, who is the owner of the property. Believing the said representation made, the de-facto complainant purchased the said property from the second accused. Subsequently, when he verified with the records, he came to know that the second accused had impersonated the real owner of the property, namely, Ramamoorthy Naidu and sold the property to the de-facto complainant. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in connection with some other transaction, the very same de-facto complainant preferred another complaint earlier, in which, the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail in Crime No.277/2011 on the file of the Nanguneri Police https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Station. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, this case is a false case. 4.I have considered the above submissions. 5.Even now, it is not the case of the accused that the persons, who sold away the property, is the real owner, namely Ramamoorthy Naidu. From the records, it is very clear that one Ramamoorthy Naidu, who is the real owner, has been impersonated by the second accused for which, the petitioner herein has helped and both of them had deceived the de-facto complainant. Though a prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner, he is not at all entitled for the grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. sd/- 13/10/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE NANGUNERI POLICE STATION TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT 2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. R.ALAGUMANI Advocate SR.No.35823 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13637 of 2011 Date :13/10/2011 TR :18.10.2011: 2p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/