Allowed

Balan v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC18 Jul 2014CRL OP(MD)/13061/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench granted anticipatory bail to several petitioners accused of forgery and cheating. Noting pending civil suits regarding the disputed documents, the Court ordered bail subject to conditions including cooperation with investigation and daily appearance before police until further orders, with a penalty for non-compliance.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners were enlarged on bail on Rs. 10,000 bond with two sureties each for daily police appearance until further orders.

Balan Vs the Inspector of Police — Madras HC (2014) — LawSathi Research

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶2

Friday, the Eighteenth day of July Two Thousand Fourteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.KARUPPIAH

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.13061 of 2014

¶6

2 VIJAYALAKSHMI

¶7

3 BALASUBRAMANIAN

¶8

4 MARISELVAN

¶9

5 ARUN

¶10

6 SUDALAI MUTHU

¶11

7 RAJ ... PETITIONER(S) / ACCUSED Nos.1,3,4,5,8,9 & 11

¶12

8 SUNDAR ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED (RANK NOT KNOWN)

¶13

¶14

THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT.

¶15

CR. NO. 34 OF 2013. ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT

¶16

VIJAYAKUMAR ..PETITIONER/INTERVENER

¶17

For Petitioner : M/S.AJMAL ASSOCIATES FOR

¶18

M/S.AJMAL KHAN SENIOR COUNSEL

¶19

For Respondent : Mr.K.Anberasan Government Advocate (Crl.side)

¶20

For Intervenor : M/S.B.Jeyakumar Advocate

¶21

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.

¶22

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶23

The petitioners who arrayed as accused No. 1,3,4,5,8,9 and 11 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 419, 465, 468, 471, 420 and 120(B) IPC, in Crime No.34 of 2013 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶24

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent/police and the learned counsel for the intervenor and perused the materials available on record.

¶25

3.The respondent police has filed a criminal case against these petitioners and others on the basis of a complaint given by one Nithin Bontway as if several documents, particularly, resolutions passed by the board of directors and power of attorney registered in Bhopal and seal of Sub Registrar Office are all forged documents and executed sale deeds and therefore committed the above said offences.

¶26

4.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that already the petitioners have filed 13 civil suits in the year 2013 regarding the resolution and other documents and all the suits are pending. During the pendency of the above said civil suits, the de-facto complaint has given a false complaint and therefore, pray for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶27

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that the petitioners have created several forged documents including the alleged resolution passed by the board of directors and the power of attorney and therefore, strongly objected for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶28

6.The learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that using the above said forged documents, 320 acres have been sold and the above said documents are to be recovered by the police and therefore objected for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶29

7.It is not in dispute that the petitioners have already filed civil suits before the Civil Courts and the same are pending and the genuineness of the documents and the resolution passed by the board of directors have to be decided by the above said courts.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that with regard to relevant documents including the resolution passed on 09.11.2005, the petitioners filed before the competent civil Courts and this documents are pending, The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that he is ready to co-operate with the investigation and to produce the relevant documents, if the police is required for effective investigation.

¶31

9.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the civil suits are pending and also there is no possibility of absconding or tampering the witnesses, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶32

10.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thoothukudi 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 shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously.

¶33

11.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.

¶34

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

¶35

/ TRUE COPY /

¶36

¶37

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.I, THOOTHUKUDI.

¶38

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THOOTHUKUDI.

¶39

3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶40

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI

¶41

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

¶42

DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT.

¶43

+1. CC to M/S.AJMAL ASSOCIATES Advocate SR.No. 40084.

¶44

+1cc to Mr. M/S.B.JEYAKUMAR Advocate in SR.No. 40052

¶45

TS/22.07.2014/3P-7c

¶46

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

Balan v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balan v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Yogananthan Vs the Sub Inspector Police

V.Ramasamy Vs the Superintendent of Police

R.Kumaresan Vs the Inspector of Police

Meenakshi Ammal, Vs 1. Selvaraj

Hameeda Bagum Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Ravi Vs the Inspector of Police