Allowed

Micheal Selvakumar v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC25 Feb 2015CRL OP(MD)/16239/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court, after the petitioners rectified a disputed land sale and the complainant renewed the sale to them, disposed of pending anticipatory bail applications in Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16239 & 16463 of 2014. The Court ordered the release of petitioners on bail upon executing bonds with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners ordered to be released on bail upon execution of a bond for Rs.10,000 with two sureties each for like sums, subject to conditions regarding reporting, tampering, and absconding.

Micheal Selvakumar Vs the Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Wednesday, the Twenty Fifth day of February Two Thousand Fifteen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice P.N.PRAKASH

¶6

CRL OP(MD)Nos.16239 & 16463 of 2014

¶7

1 MICHEAL SELVAKUMAR

¶8

2 ALDRIN XAVIER

¶9

3 KINGSLEY ..PETITIONERS 1 TO 3/ACCUSED NO.1,3 & 4 IN CRL.OP(MD)No.16239/2014 MUTHUKUMARASAMY ..PETITIONER-1/ACCUSED NO.2

¶10

IN CRL.OP(MD)No.16463/2014

¶11

Vs.

¶12

STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE RADHAPURAM POLICE STAITON, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.

¶13

CR. NO.188 OF 2014 RESPECTIVELY. ..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶14

IN BOTH THE PETITIONS

¶15

For Petitioner : M/S.F.DEEPAK Advocate in Crl.OP(MD)No.16239/2014 For Petitioner : M/S.D.VENKATESH, Advocate in Crl.OP(MD)No.16463/2014 For Respondent : Mr.C.RAMESH, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶16

in Both the petitions

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶19

On 29.01.2015, this Court has passed the following Order: “The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420, 294(b) and 506(i) IPC in Crime No.188 of 2014 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Defacto complainant is also present as also the Investigating Officer.

¶21

The case of the defacto complainant is that he purchased 39 cents of land out of total area of 77 cents in S.No.570 in Veppilangulam Village, Radhapuram Taluk by a deed of sale dated 27.11.2009 registered vide Doc.No.7271/09 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Radhapuram.

¶22

On perusal of the schedule of the sale deed, it is clearly stated as follows:

¶23

“eph;.570 br77y; tlf;fila br39f;F bcwf;.0.15.79 MfpwJ g{uht[k;/ vy;if-Buhl;ow;F Bkw;Fk; bjw;Fk; br.Rg;gpukzpaj;Bjth; tifauh g[q;irf;F tlf;FkhdJ.””

¶24

Thus, from the above, it is clear that the defacto https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ complainant had purchased a well demarcated property. While so, Muthukumarasamy / petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16463 of

¶25

2014 has purchased lands in S.No.570 of the same Village on 11.11.2010 by Doc.No.2116/2010, registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Radhapuram. In its schedule, it is stated as follows:

¶26

“jpUbey;Btyp khtl;lk;. jpUbey;Btyp gjpt[ khtl;lk;. nuhjhg[uk; gjpt [ cgkhtl;lk;. nuhjhg[uk; tl;lk;. Btg;gpyhd;Fsk; fpuhkk; m.g.rh;Bt 570 ek;ghpy; 0.31.0 bcwf;Blhpy; gphptpd;wpghjp 0.15.5 bcwf;BlUk;.””

¶27

On the strength of this, the petitioners are disturbing the peaceful possession of the defacto complainant's property and thereby trying to encumber the property of the defacto complainant.

¶28

Allegations against these petitioners are indeed very serious and this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to these petitioners. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners will make necessary rectification with the previous vendor and file an affidavit before this Court that they will not disturb the peaceful possession of the defacto complainant's land.

¶29

Under such circumstances, Interim Anticipatory Bail is granted to the petitioners upto 20.02.2015 and the petitioners shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10:30 a.m for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when for interrogation. In the event of arrest, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail on their executing a bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) without sureties to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer.

¶30

It is represented by the defacto complainant that he has put fencing around his property and these petitioners destroyed the same. Extraordinary case requires extraordinary remedy. Hence, I direct the respondent Police to afford protection to the defacto complainant so that he puts his fencing in the property covered by his document. The petitioners are directed not to cause any hindrance to the defacto complainant.

¶31

List these matters on 20.02.2015 for hearing.”

¶32

2.Today, the respondent Police is present and they have filed a status report, in which, it is stated that pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, the Police gave protection to the defacto complainant for demarcation of the land and thereafter, the defacto complainant sold the land to Mr.Micheal Selvakumar, who is the first petitioner in Crl.O.P. (MD).No.16239 of 2014 by way of a sale deed dated 20.02.2015, registered as document No.613/2015 on the file of the Sub-Registrar's Office, Radhapuram.

¶33

3.Placing on record the status report filed by the respondent Police, this Court is inclined to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioners in both the petitions/Accused Nos.1 to 4.

¶34

Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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

¶35

Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

¶36

[a] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation.

¶37

[b] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

¶38

[c] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

¶39

[d] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial 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 Judicial 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].

¶40

sd/-

¶41

25/02/2015

¶42

/ TRUE COPY /

¶43

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VALLIYOOR, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.

¶44

2 -do-thro'THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.

¶45

3 THE ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT,MADURAI.

¶46

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RADHAPURAM POLICE STAITON, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.

¶47

+1. CC to M/S.D.VENKATESH, Advocate SR.No.9055

¶48

CRL OP(MD)Nos.16239 & 16463 of 2014

¶49

PBK 27/02/2015 ::3P-6C:

¶50

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

Micheal Selvakumar v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Micheal Selvakumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R. Kalimuthu Vs the Inspector of Police

Ramkumar @ Boopathy Vs the Inspector of Police

M.Jaya Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police

Sasikumar Vs the Inspector of Police

Velayutham Vs the Inspector of Police

Manojkumar Vs the Inspector of Police