Jegadeesh v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Eighteenth day of January Two Thousand Nineteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.NIRMAL KUMAR CRL OP(MD) Nos.22048 AND 22879 of 2018 1 JEGADEESH 2 VANAJA ... PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED No. 1 and 2 IN CRL OP(MD) No. 22048 of 2018 1 THAMSRAJ 2 SUDHAKARAN ... PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED No. 3 and 4 IN CRL OP(MD) No. 22879 of 2018 Vs STATE REP. BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THENI POLICE STATION, THENI DISTRICT.
(CRIME NO. 880 OF 2018) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT IN BOTH THE PETITIONS M.SUBBURAM ... PETITIONER/INTERVENER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT IN CRL MP(MD) No. 10480 of 2018 IN CRL OP(MD) No. 22048 of 2018 For Petitioners : MR.G.KARUPPASAMY PANDIAN, Advocate for MR.A.K.AZAGARSAMI Advocate IN CRL OP(MD) No. 22048 of 2018 MR.G.KARUPPASAMY PANDIAN, Advocate IN CRL OP(MD) No. 22879 of 2018 For Respondent : MR.K.SUYAMBULINGA BHARATHI Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) IN BOTH THE PETIITONS For Intervener :
MR.S.C.HEROLD SINGH, Advocate IN CRL MP(MD) No. 10480 of 2018 IN CRL OP(MD) No. 22048 of 2018 PETITION FOR ANTICIAPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-
The petitioners, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC, in Cr.No.880 of 2018 seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that due to dispute over the right of cutting trees near the bushes the petitioners abused the defacto complainant, slabbed him and threatened him with dire consequences.
3. The petitioners in Crl.O.P(MD)No.22048 of 2018 are the accused Nos.1 & 2 and the petitioners in Crl.O.P(MD)No.22879 of 2018 are the accused Nos.3 & 4.
4.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant had executed a power of attorney to A1/Jegadeesh on 28.05.2018 without receipt of any money for the few properties viz., survey No.29/6A 1 acre 58 cents of Jangalpatti Village, Patta No.1299 and Survey Nos.29/6D, 29/6E, 29/6B. Using the same, the first accused had executed a sale deed in favour of his mother Vanaja thereby misappropriated and using the forged documents. 5.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the defacto complainant executed a power of attorney to the first accused on condition that the first accused has to clear all the debt and dues which the defacto complainant owes to the Bank by pleading the title deeds of the documents and also to other villagers. Based on the said undertaking, the first accused on 28.05.
2018 had cleared the loan amount of Rs.1,96,000/- of the defacto complainant. Subsequent to the same, the documents were cleared by the Bank. The defacto complainant and the first accused had approached the Bank and got the documents and subsequently, the documents were handed over to the first accused by the defacto complainant. Pursuant to the same, the first accused had settled a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- on 25.07.2018 to the villagers, to whom the defacto complainant was due. The acknowledgement showing the acceptance of the same signed by the defacto complainant's wife has been produced. The accused No.2 is being the mother of the first accused to whom the property had been settled by the first accused is attributed with malice. The other accused viz., accused Nos.
3 & 4 are the witnesses to the power of attorney and other than that there is no specific overt-act against them.
6.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit that on receipt of the complaint, investigation has been carried out and the documents have been secured. Further, the police had enquired the Bank Officials and recorded the statement and came to know that the defacto complainant along with first accused had approached the Bank and received the documents from the Bank for discharging the loan and the loan amount had been repaid and thereafter, the documents have been released.
7. Taking into consideration the facts of the case and the submissions by learned counsels, this Court inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
8. Accordingly, the petitioners are 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, Theni on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the said Magistrate, on further condition that:
[a] if the petitioners fail to surrender before the said Magistrate within a period of fifteen days, this Order shall stand automatically cancelled.
[b] the first petitioner/A1 in Crl.O.P(MD)No.22048 of 2018 shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 am for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation and the other petitioners shall appear before the respondent police as and when required.
[c] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.
[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
[e] 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 as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560]. [f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.
sd/- 18/01/2019 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THENI 2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE THENI DISTRICT 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THENI POLICE STATION, THENI DISTRICT.
4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI +1. CC to MR.A.K.AZAGARSAMI Advocate SR.No.912 +1. CC to MR.G.KARUPPASAMY PANDIAN, Advocate SR.No.913 +1. CC to MR.S.C.HEROLD SINGH, Advocate Advocate SR.No.943
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) Nos.22048 AND 22879 of 2018 Date :18/01/2019 MSI/JC/SAR-III/23.01.2019-4P/ 8C