BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Twenty Second day of July Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) Nos.9112 and 9113 of 2011 RAJ @ PHILOMIN RAJ ..PETITIONER/ACCUSED-1 IN BOTH THE PETITIONS Vs. STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT. ( CRIME NOS.31 & 30 OF 2011 ) ..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT IN BOTH THE PETITIONS For Petitioner in Both the Petitions : M/S. R.ANAND Advocate For Respondent in Both the Petitions : MR.A.RAMAR, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITIONS FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 419, 468, 471 and 420 I.P.C., in Crime Nos.31 and 30 of 2011 respectively on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner in both the petitions would submit that the property was purchased by A6 on 16.07.1990 and he was sold the property to his son on 28.04.2011 and his son was executed the power of attorney to A4 on 31.05.2011, in turn he sold the same in favour of the defacto complainant on 17.06.2011. When the defacto complainant visited the property, then he came to know somebody has claimed the title of the property and hence, the complaint has been given by the defacto complainant. He would further submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case and hence, he prays for enlargement on anticipatory bail. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the sale deed was executed in favour of the defacto complainant and when the defacto complainant has visited the property, he came to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ know that some body has claimed the title of the property. He would further submit that the petitioner is the Attester of the documents and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application. 4. Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and also considering the fact that the petitioner is only the Attester of the sale deed in favour of the defacto complainant and even though the petitioner was not arrested neither he interfered with the investigation nor absconded from the jurisdiction, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in both the petitions, with certain conditions. 5. Accordingly, the petitioner, in both the petitions, is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thoothukudi and on 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 learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioner shall report before the Court concerned daily morning at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously. 6. The petitioner 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/- 22/07/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, THOOTHUKUDI. 2 -Do-Thro' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THOOTHUKUDI. 3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT. +2. CC to M/S. R.ANAND Advocate SR.Nos.24196 & 24197 akm/25.07.11 /2p-7c/ ORDER IN CRL OP(MD)Nos.9112 and 9113 of 2011 Date :22/07/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/