C.Alexander v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Eighteenth day of December Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRL OP(MD) No.16388 of 2017 C.ALEXANDER ... PETITIONER / SOLE ACCUSED Vs THE STATE REP.BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE MARTHANDAM POLICE STATION, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.
CR NO. 138/2016 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.S.C.HEROLD SINGH Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.ANBARASAN Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner/sole accused who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 of I.P.C, in Crime No.138 of 2016, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the defacto complainant are brothers. Originally, the property owned by one Chellaiah, who is the father of the petitioner and defacto complainant. The petitioner executed a sale deed in favour of the defacto complainant on 03.06.1994, thereafter, the defacto complainant executed a sale deed in favour of his son. The petitioner also filed a suit in O.S.No.25 of 2016 in respect of very same property in new survey No.439/1. While the suit is pending, the defacto complainant filed a complainant before the respondent police as if, the petitioner executed a sale deed by forging the patta. Accordingly, the defacto complainant filed a complaint before the respondent police as against the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the State submitted that there was a Civil dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kuzhiturai, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent Police or to the Police Officer, who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further conditions that:
(i) the petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation;
(ii) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. (iii) the petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail;
(iv) the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
(v) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law and the anticipatory bail granted stands cancelled automatically.
sd/- 18/12/2017 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, KUZHITURAI. 2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT AT NAGERCOIL.
3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MARTHANDAM POLICE STATION, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT. 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1. CC to M/S.S.C.HEROLD SINGH Advocate SR.No.36405 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.16388 of 2017 Date :18/12/2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ MKV-VC-SAR 1/22.12.2017/2P-6C