Venkatachalam v. The State Rep.By
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Twenty Third day of June Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.M.SUNDRESH CRL OP(MD) No.9382 of 2015 1 VENKATACHALAM 2 RAVI KUMAR 3 KALYANA RAMAN ..PETITIONERS/ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN Vs.
THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANTI LAND GRABBING WING, O/O. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TRICHY, TRICHY DISTRICT.
CR.NO. NOT KNOWN OF 2015 ..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioners : M/S.M.PITCHAI MUTHU Advocate For Respondent : MRS.S.PRABHA, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners/accused apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, in Crime No. 15 of 2015, on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.
2. It appears that the property in dispute originally belongs to one Motcham Ammal. After her death, the said property devolved in favour of her husband and children. The de-facto complainant is one of the daughter of the said Motcham Ammal. The power of attorney has been executed by the other legal heirs and on behalf of de-facto complainant also. It has been stated that the de-facto complainant where about is not known. Based on the power deed the first petitioner has been executed in favour of the second petitioner. Subsequently, one Raja had informed the second petitioner that his another sister also willing to give up right over the property and she had introduced one Arokiyamarry W/o Savarimuthu. After that, the said Arokiyamarry executed a registered sale consent deed in favour of the second petitioner. Alleging that the said sale consent deed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ have been forged by impersonating her, the de-facto complainant given a complaint.
3.Heard the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent.
4.Considering the nature of allegation made against the petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, with certain conditions.
5.Accordingly, the petitioners 2 and 3 are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.VI, Trichy, Trichy District, and 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. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner not pressed the petition in respect of the first petitioner is concerned. 6.The petitioners 2 and 3 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/- 23/06/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.VI, TRICHY, TRICHY DISTRICT. 2 -DO- THE CHIEF JUDCIAL MAGISTRATE, TRICHY. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANTI LAND GRABBING WING, O/O. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TRICHY, TRICHY DISTRICT. 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT MADURAI +1. CC to M/S.M.PITCHAI MUTHU Advocate SR.No.33033 AKM/2P-6C/AMF/23.06.15
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.9382 of 2015 Date :23/06/2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/