CRL OP(MD).No.11050 of 2020

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

Date : 08/10/2020

PRESENT

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

CRL OP(MD).No.11050 of 2020

Arumuga Nainar

... Petitioner/Accused No.6

Vs

The State rep. by

The Inspector of Police,

CCD, Madurai City.

Cr.No.36 of 2020.

... Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.K.S.Durai Pandian, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mrs.M.Anandha Devi,

Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

For Intervener : Mr.G.Mariappan, Advocate

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

PRAYER :-

For an Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.36 of 2020 on the file of

the respondent police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

The petitioner, who is arrayed as A6, apprehending arrest at

the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under

sections 120(B), 260, 465, 468 and 471 IPC, in Crime No.36 of 2020

on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the undivided share of

the defacto complainant was in possession and enjoyment of his

father. While being so, A1 and A2, who had also share in the above

said property had created a forged document by supressing the

defacto complainant's right over the property. They also fabricated

legal certificate and got settlement deed registered in favour of

the first accused. Thereafter, property was transferred infavour of

A3 and A4. They also executed general power of attorney infavor of

A5. On the strength of the same, the power of attorney executed

lease deed in favour of A6. Hence, the complaint.

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the

learned counsel appearing for the intervener/defacto complainant and

1/4

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

CRL OP(MD).No.11050 of 2020

the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the

respondent.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted

that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the

prosecution. Even according to the defacto complainant the lease

deed executed infavour of A6. In fact, the dispute between the

complainant and the mother of the first and second accused. They

filed a suti and it is pending in O.S.No.248 of 2019 on the file of

the Principal District Court, Madurai. Insofar as the petitioner is

concerned, he has bonafied tenant and nothing to do with any offence

as alleged by the defacto complainant. Infact in another complaint

lodged as against the petitioner and others the petitioner was

granted anticipatory bail for the very same issue, in which, the

petitioner undertakes not to interfere with the possession and

enjoyment of the said portion, which was leased out infavour of the

petitioner herein.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the intervener/defacto

complainant submitted that there are totally six accused. The

defacto complainant's name suppressed and fabricated in the legal

heir certificate. On the strength of the legal heir certificate the

accused A1 and A2 encumbered the property by executing the general

power of attorney and also leased out. In fact, A5 filed an

anticipatory bail application before this Court and it is pending.

6.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing

for the respondent police submitted that there are totally six

accused. The defacto complainant's name has been suppressed and

fabricated in the legal heir certificate. On the strength of the

legal heir certificate, the accused A1 and A2 encumbered the

property by executing the general power of attorney and also leased

out. In fact A5 has filed an anticipatory bail application before

this Court and it is pending.

7.It is seen that there are totally six accused in this case.

The petitioner is arrayed as A6. Even accordi