Umar Farook@Umar Jagubar v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the First day of September Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.16864 of 2015 1 UMAR FAROOK @ UMAR JAGUBAR 2 CHINNAIAH 3 NAGARAJ 4 SEKAR ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4 Vs THE STATE REP.BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE JEGATHAPATTINAM POLICE STATION, PUDUKOTTAI DISTRICT.

(CRIME NO.50 OF 2015) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S T.LENIN KUMAR For Respondent : MRS.S.PRABHA, Government Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 4, were apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 294(b), 323, 465 and 506(i) of IPC, in Crime No.50 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.

2.According to the defacto complainant, he is the absolute owner of the property in Survey Nos.139/1, 139/9, 142/12 & 142/3B at Muthenenthal Village and the accused by fabricating documents, obtained house-tax receipt and electricity bills in their name. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the father of the defacto complainant namely Abdul Jaleel by a sale deed, dated 30.09.1992, sold 0.15 cents of land in S.No.142/3B to the father of the petitioners 3 and 4 and since then they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same and mutation in the revenue records has taken place. It is further submitted that due to rise in the price, now a false complaint was given against the petitioners. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) vehemently opposed the granting of anticipatory bail to the petitioners and contended that the accused have committed grave offence. 5.Considering the facts, this Court is 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, Aranthangi 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 and on further condition that the petitioners shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.00 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, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed.

sd/- 01/09/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ARANTHANGI.

2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PUDUKOTTAI DISTRICT. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ,JEGATHAPATTINAM POLICE STATION, PUDUKOTTAI DISTRICT.

4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1. CC to M/S T.LENIN KUMAR Advocate SR.No.50643

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.16864 of 2015 Date :01/09/2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ CSL/AN-MP/SAR-II/03.09.2015 2P/6C