R. Rethinaraj v. The Sub Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Tenth day of June Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.1640 of 2016 1 R. RETHINARAJ 2 R. KAMARAJ 3 R. STELLA 4 R. MARY HELEN LEELA 5 RAJAM 6 R. ROSE 7 R. MANJU ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 to 5, 7 & 8 Vs 1 STATE REP BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ANTI LAND GRABBING POLICE STATION, NAGERCOIL,KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT, CR NO.58 OF 2015.
... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT 2 JOHN ROBINSON ... RESPONDENT/INFORMANT For Petitioner : M/S N.DILIP KUMAR Advocate For Respondent 1 : MR.K.ANBARASAN Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Respondent 2 : M/S.S.C.HEROLD SINGH Advocate 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 5, 7 and 8, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120(b),294(b), 465,467,468,471,420 and 506(i) of IPC, in Crime No.58 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the owner of the land in R.S.No.373/1B corresponding to old Survey No.3352B measuring an extent of 28 Cent. The accused persons in collusion with A9 / Village Administrative Officer included their name in the Patta proceedings and dealt with the properties. On complaint, case has been registered against the petitioners.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that in respect of the land in S.No.3351B (R.S.No.373/17B) they are dealing with the property and initiated suit proceeding in O.S.No.716 of 1974 and it is now pending in A.S.No.12 of 2009. The defacto complainant previously gave one complaint against one
Jebamani, including Village Administrative Officer for the very same set of facts and they were granted anticipatory bail by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil in Crl.M.P.No.2823 of 2015, dated 12.10.2015.
4. The learned counsel for the second respondent reiterated the averments made in the complaint and submitted that the defacto complainant became owner of the property by inheritance and by partition among brothers. When he went to the land in question, he came to know that the petitioners in collusion with the Village Administrative Officer included their name in the Patta proceedings. The petitioners committed forgery and fabricated documents and are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property belonging to the defacto complainant.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that on complaint of the second respondent, case has been registered against the petitioners and the investigation of the case is pending.
6. Considering the fact that the alleged occurrence took place on 07.06.2015 and FIR has been registered on 04.09.2015 and that the allegation against the petitioners is that in collusion with the Village Administrative Officer they have included their name in the Patta proceedings, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary. 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 District and Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil 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 1 and 2 shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation and the petitioners 3 to 7 being ladies shall appear before the respondent Police as and when required for interrogation. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously.
7. 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/- 10/06/2016 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT AT NAGERCOIL 2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ANTI LAND GRABBING POLICE STATION, NAGERCOIL,KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT 3 THE ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1cc to Mr.N.Dilip Kumar,Advocate Sr.No.29604 +1. CC to M/S. S.C.HEROLD SINGH Advocate SR.No.29586
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.1640 of 2016 Date :10/06/2016 AA/SK-SKN/SAR-I/22.06.2016/3p-6c