Criminal jurisdiction petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. arising from a property dispute. Court granted bail with specific conditions regarding report submission and compliance.
Petitioner released on bail with two sureties, required to report daily for two weeks, and prohibited from tampering with evidence or absconding.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )
Tuesday, the Twenty Fourth day of March Two Thousand Fifteen
PRESENT
THE HON`BLE MR JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH
CRL OP(MD) No.15478 of 2014
SIVAGURU KUTRALAM ... PETITIONER / 1st ACCUSED
Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANTI LAND GRABBING SPECIAL CELL, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT, NAGERCOIL. CRIME NO.51 OF 2014. ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT
For Petitioner : M/S.C.T.PERUMAL, Advocate
For Respondent : M/S.P.KANDASAMY, Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervener : MR.S.PALANI VELAYUTHAM, Advocate
PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-
Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police in Crime No.51 of 2014, on the file of the respondent police for offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 IPC, the petitioner is now before this Court seeking Anticipatory Bail.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the intervenor and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent.
3.Earlier, the matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre and a failure report dated 12.02.2015 has been received.
4.This case has been registered pursuant to the order passed by this Court in Crl.OP.(MD) No. 12111 of 2014 on 14.07.2014.
2
some money from one Ajith kumar (A2) some time prior to 2006. It is alleged by the de-facto complainant that his wife Lilly Christopher was called by Ajithkumar to Kerala and where she was forced to execute a document in Malayalam and the document was registered on 29.06.2006 in favour of Ajithkumar. Thereafter Ajithkumar/A2 executed settlement deed on 28.12.2012 in respect of the said property in favour of his wife Beena (A3). Beena(A3) sold the said property on 03.01.2013 to Sivaguru Kutralam, the petitioner herein.
“3.I have enquired the de-facto complainant as witness. The petitioner/accused No.1 also appeared for the investigation.” It appears from the status report that the accused appeared before the police and cooperated with the investigation.
[a] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation.
[b] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ [c] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
3
[d] 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].
[e] The Inspector of Police concerned is directed to send compliance report to the office of the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) as to whether the petitioner is complying with the condition or not.
sd/-
24/03/2015
/ TRUE COPY /
Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO
msm 26.03.2015 p3/6c
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in a case involving a property dispute alleging undue execution of documents.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P.K. Shaji vs. State of KeralaReferred¶28
P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560] · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sivaguru Kutralam
The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil
P.N. Prakash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
