1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT (Criminal Jurisdiction) Thursday, the Fifteenth day of July Two Thousand Ten PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.6433 of 2010 1 B. BALA SUBBAIAH 2 B. SENTHAMIL SELVI 3 B. MALA 4 HEMALATHA :PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4 S.SRIVASA RAO :INTERVENER (MP(MD)1/2010) -Vs- THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, DINDIGUL. DINDIGUL DISTRICT. CRIME NO.60/2010. :RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.J. LAWRENCE, Advocate For Respondent : MR. L. MURUGAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervener : Mr.S.Sureshkumar, Advocate. PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER:The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners are arrayed as A1 to A4 and they apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 417, 420, 468, 471, 120(b) r/w. 34 of I.P.C. in Crime No.60 of 2010 on the file of the respondent police and hence seek anticipatory bail. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the case has been registered against the petitioners under Sections 417, 420, 468, 471, 120(b) r/w. 34 of I.P.C.. He further submitted that the property is belonging to the petitioners father as well as the de-facto complainant's vendor and it is an ancestral property, but even though the de-facto complainant has given a complaint there is a compromise between both the parties and in pursuance to the compromise, the alleged sale deed executed by the petitioners were agreed to cancel and hence, he prays for enlargement on anticipatory bail. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3.The learned counsel for the intervener would submit that the matter has been compromised because the petitioners have given assurance that they will cancel the sale deed executed by them and he has not pressed the complaint given by him and he has no objection to grant anticipatory bail. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that he has not received any petition for not pressing the complaint. 5.Considering the rival submissions made by both sides that since the learned counsel for the intervener would submit that the matter has been compromised after registration of the case and the petitioners herein have given an undertaking to cancel the sale deed and so the intervener has not pressed the complaint given by him and he also expressed his no objection to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul 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 like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 5.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/- 15/07/2010 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO: 1.The Judicial Magistrate No:II, Dindigul. 2.-Do- Thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul. 3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 4.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Dindigul, Dindigul District. +2CC to M/S.J. LAWRENCE Advocate SR.Nos.24959 & 23946. RP/16.07.2010/2p/7c. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.6433 of 2010 Date :15/07/2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/