BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Sixteenth day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.12316 of 2011 1 JEYAKANNAN 2 RAJA THEVAR 3 GANESAN 4 ANDIVEL 5 SUBHULAKSHMI 6 SARADHA 7 VIJAYA ... PETITIONER(S) / ACCUSED 1, 3, 4, 5, 10 TO 12 Vs STATE REP BY:: THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VADAMADURAI POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. IN CRIME NO.346 OF 2011. ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. K.JEGANATHAN Advocate For Respondent : MR. A. RAMAR, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners/Accused Nos.1,3,4,5 and 10 to 12 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 294(b),368 and 506(ii) IPC, in Crime No.346 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are arrayed as A1,3,4,5 and 10 to 12 and the false case has been registered under Sections 147, 294(b),368 and 506(ii) IPC. Since, one Sekar, Arunagiri and Saravanan executed the forged sale agreement grabbing the land belonging to the first petitioner herein, he filed a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vedasanthur, which was forwarded under Section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code and on 23.06.2011 the case has been registered in Crime No.357 of 2011 by the respondent. As a counter blast, the present complaint has been given as if the alleged occurrence took place on 25.05.2011 and the case has been registered on 20.08.2011 under Sections 147, 294(b),368 and 506(ii) IPC. In that, the de-facto complainant's father is missing, but, the petitioners submit that the whereabouts of his father is not known for the past 15 years and now because of the enmity, the false case has been registered and there is a delay in preferring the complaint and now the petitioners are apprehending arrest and hence, they pray for enlargement on anticipatory bail. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.Refuting the same the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.Side) submits that the date of occurrence is on 25.05.2011 and all the accused went to the de-facto complainant's house and informed the de-facto complainant that they have abducted the father of the de- facto complainant since the complainant cheated A1 and there is a case pending in Crime No.357 of 2011 and the investigation is at initial stage and hence he prays for dismissal of the petition. 4.Considering the rival submissions made on both sides, it is seen that the alleged occurrence is said to have been taken place on 25.05.2011. As per the version of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there was a previous enmity pending before the petitioners and one Sekar, Arunagiri and Saravanan forged the sale agreement for grabbing the land belonging to the first petitioner and when he was questioned, he made criminal intimidation and the case has been registered in Crime No.357 of 2011. The occurrence took place on 25.05.2011, but the complaint was given on 20.08.2011 and there is a delay in preferring the complaint. As per the version of the petitioner's Counsel the whereabouts of the father of the de-facto complainant are not known for the past 15 years and the investigation is considerably over. Even though the petitioners were not arrested, they neither interfered with the investigation nor absconded from the jurisdiction. Hence, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. 5.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vedasanthur, Dindigul District and each of them 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 Judicial Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioners shall report before the Court concerned daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 6.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, anticipatory bail petition stands dismissed. sd/- 16/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VEDASANTHUR, DINDIGUL DINDIGUL DISTRICT 2 DO THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL 3 THE ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT MADURAI 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAMADURAI POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. 1. CC to M/S. K.JEGANATHAN Advocate SR.No.31934: DM::2011:SEPTEMBER:20:: ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.12316 of 2011 Date :16/09/2011 2P:6C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/