Judgment : 1. Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. Offences alleged are under Sections 120(B), 417, 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C. r/w 82 of Registration Act, 1980. 3. Petitioners are A-1 and A-3. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, in describing the property some mistake has crept in the mortgage bond executed in favour of Punjab National Bank, Tiruppur branch. Now, a mountain out of a mole is being made. Possession notice issued by the bank also strengthens this view. Further, in S.A.No.147 of 2012 this matter has also been taken to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore. Second petitioner/A-3 is merely signed as an attestor in the mortgage bond. However, he also has been implicated in this case. 5. Learned Govt. Advocate Crl.Side) submitted that the first petitioner had mortgaged the property of the defacto complainant measuring 78 cents comprised in survey No.126/4 with the Punjab National Bank, Tiruppur and availed of a loan of Rs.7 crores. Now, it has been declared a Non Performing Assets (NPA). The bank initiated recovery proceedings against the debtors, also as against the property of the defacto complainant. Cheating and forgery has been committed. Case is being investigated into. 6. Learned counsel for the Intervenor reiterated the same and submitted that because of the cheating and forgery committed by the accused, now the bank has proceeded against the property belongs to the defacto complainant. 7. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the averments in the anticipatory bail petition, the intervenor’s petition and also perused the case-diary. 8. First petitioner/A-1 and certain others owned 1.83 acres comprised in S.No.126/4, situate in Pongupalayam village in Tiruppur Taluk and District. On 6.5.2005, out of the said 1.83 acres, they have sold 1.57 acres to Senthil Kumar by way of a regular registered sale deed. The vendors retained only 26 cents in S.No.126/4. Subsequently, on 12.6.2006, Senthil Kumar sold 78 cents out of his 1.57 acres to the defacto complainant Shanmugam. It is also by way of a regular registered sale deed. Thus, Senthil Kumar retained the remaining 79 cents. There is no dispute about these aspects which are also borne out by documents. 9. A-1 is running a garment unit in Tiruppur. On 4.5.2007, first petitioner availed of a loan of Rs.7 Crores from Punjab National Bank, Tiruppur Branch. It is also by way of a regular registered sale deed. Thus, Senthil Kumar retained the remaining 79 cents. There is no dispute about these aspects which are also borne out by documents. 9. A-1 is running a garment unit in Tiruppur. On 4.5.2007, first petitioner availed of a loan of Rs.7 Crores from Punjab National Bank, Tiruppur Branch. An equitable mortgage by deposit of title deed was executed by A-1 and others. The property mortgaged was 1.83 acres comprised in S.No.126/4 situate in Pongupalayam Village. On 22.7.2010, the said mortgage was discharged and a registered receipt was also obtained by A-1 from the bank. On the same day, again an equitable mortgage was created for the entire 1.83 acres. In this mortgage bond, the Second petitioner/A-3 and one vijayaragavan have signed as attestors. The loan amount was not repaid. Huge arrears arose. It has become a Non Performing Asset. The bank initiated recovery action under SARFEASI Act also as against the entire 1.83 acres comprised in S.No.126/4. 10. It is pertinent to note that on and after 6.5.2005 first petitioner/A-1 and other legal heirs have title only to 26 cents in S.No.126/4. However, first petitioner/A-1 has included 79 cents of Senthil Kumar and 78 cents of defacto complainant also and created the mortgage deed and availed of a loan of Rs.7 Crores. In the Bank’s possession notice, the entire 1.83 acres has been mentioned. 11. The contention of the borrowers before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore with regard to the recovery proceedings initiated by the bank is different from the criminality alleged as against them by the defacto complainant. This cannot be viewed as simply a wrong inclusion of the property of others in a mortgage bond. 12. The main accused is A-1. A-3 has only signed as an attest or in the mortgage bond. A-1 has cheated the defacto complainant by including his property in the mortgage bond. A-1 and other accused have misused the property of the defacto complainant. 13. Considering all the above aspects, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the second petitioner/A-3 only. 14. (i) Anticipatory bail granted to the second petitioner/A-3. A-1 has cheated the defacto complainant by including his property in the mortgage bond. A-1 and other accused have misused the property of the defacto complainant. 13. Considering all the above aspects, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the second petitioner/A-3 only. 14. (i) Anticipatory bail granted to the second petitioner/A-3. (ii) Second petitioner shall surrender before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Land Grabbing Offences, Tiruppur within 15 days of receipt of a copy of this order; (iii) Second petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the said Magistrate; (iv) Second petitioner shall also report before the respondent police on every Monday and Friday at 10.30 a.m., for two weeks. (v) So far as the first petitioner/A-1 namely, Duraisamy is concerned, petition is dismissed.