1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT (Criminal Jurisdiction) Wednesday, the Thirtieth day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.15664 of 2011 1 L.S.R RUKUMANI AMMAL 2 L.S.R. SANKAR 3 SADHASIVAM 4 GUNASEKARAN 5 ARULRAJ @ SUSI 6 RENGASAMY 7 G. PERUMAL :PETITIONERS / ACCUSED -Vs- THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AUNDIPATTI POLICE STATION, THENI DISTRICT. CRIME NO.492/2011 :RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. S.MAHENDRAPATHY Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 Cr.P.C. ORDER:The Court Made the following order:- The petitioners are the accused and they prayed for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 417, 420, 467 and 506(i) of I.P.C in Crime No.492 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police. 2.Heard Mr.S.Mahendrapathy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.K.S.Duraipandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit in his argument that the first petitioner is the wife of one L.S.Ramakrishnan, who died in the year 1999 and he left some properties to be inherited by both the first petitioner and other legal heirs. He would further submit in his argument that the said L.S.Ramakrishnan, has executed a will on 18.09.1996 and the first petitioner along with the second petitioner, stated to have sold some properties depriving the de-facto complainant and other legal heirs of her first son by name L.S.R.Krishnan. According to the learned counsel, the first petitioner has acted in pursuance of the will and right conferred upon her. He would further submit that the de-facto complainant has sent a legal notice through his counsel for effecting partition and separate possession of the properties and when a legal notice has been sent, only a civil suit will lie. He would further submit in his argument that the petitioners 3 to 7 are purchasers from the petitioners 1 and 2 in respect of punja lands, house property and two tractors said to have been belonged to the said L.S.Ramakrishnan. He would further submit that the dispute is purely civil in nature and the petitioners are sufficiently aged persons and they have got permanent residence and root in the society and therefore, they will not abscond and therefore, they may be granted anticipatory bail. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that the reliance of the petitioners 1 and 2 over the will cannot be decided at this stage and the criminality in this case, has to be ascertained during the course of investigation and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners are not prima facie guilty of the offences stated in the complaint and if for any reason, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, suitable conditions may be imposed for their secured presence. 5.Considering the submissions made by both parties, this Court could see that the petitioners 1 and 2 are admittedly legal heirs of the said L.S.Ramakrishnan being the wife and one of the sons. The de-facto complainant is admittedly the grandson of the first petitioner and the said L.S.Ramakrishnan and he is the son of L.S.R.Krishnan, who is the eldest son of the first petitioner and the said L.S.Ramakrishnan. The petitioners 1 and 2 relied upon a will dated 18.09.1996 and whether the will comprise the properties dealt with by the purchasers have to be seen only at the time of investigation. Similarly, whether the de-facto complainant is entitled to partition and separate possession of the said properties as sought for by him, has to be decided only by the civil Court. The criminality attached with the transaction have to be ascertained only during investigation. In the said circumstances, I could see that there is prima facie case in favour of the petitioners for the grant of anticipatory bail. 6.Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aundipatti and on each of them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each for a likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aundipatti and on further condition that the petitioners shall report before the respondent police as and when required. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 7.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/- 30/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO: 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Aundipatti, Theni District. 2.-Do- Thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theni. 3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 4.The Inspector of Police, Aundipatti Police Station, Theni District. +1. CC to M/S. S.MAHENDRAPATHY Advocate SR.No.42148. RP/02.12.2011/2P/6C. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.15664 of 2011 Date :30/11/2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/