Umapathi v. State Through The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 19-01-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

1. Umapathi S/o. Mani, Road Street, Kudumikudisai Villgae,Vannakulam, Arni,Tiruvannamalai-632315.

Petitioner(s) Vs

1. State through The Inspector of Police, Arni Town Police Station, Tiruvannamalai Disrict (In Crime No.

648 / 2025) Respondent(s) PRAYER To enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest or surrender in Crime No. 648 of 2025 under section 337 and 318 (3) of BNS on the file respondent police and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s):

Manjukanth S For Respondent(s):

M/S.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 337, 318(3) of BNS in Crime No. 648 of 2025, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that, while working as Senior Bailiff, he was involved in fabricating a raising attachment order in connection with REP 72 of 2009 in REP No. 7 of 2003 in O.S. No. 67 of 2006 on the file of the Sub Court, Arani. At the time of registering the above attachment, he quarreled with the staff of the Sub Registrar. Hence, they contacted the Central Nazar and informed the incident, and after verifying the CCTV footage, the complaint has been lodged. Hence, the case has been registered.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner acted only on the instructions given by the Central Nazar and went to the office to file the raising attachment order, and he did not do so on his own volition. Therefore, he prays for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that it is a case of filing a fabricated raising attachment order for the purpose of benefiting some litigants, and further, there was no such order passed by the concerned District Court for raising attachment. Hence, it is a clear case of interference in the administration of justice. Hence, she opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. I have gone through the FIR and other connected materials, it is revealed that, after thorough investigation and after perusing the CCTV footage recorded in the Sub Registrar's office, the complaint has been lodged against the petitioner, and the investigation is pending. Admittedly, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the District Court and other concerned officers, and the petitioner is not only involved in fabrication of records but also come forward to benefit some litigants and also quarrelled and caused a fight with the Sub Registrar's office. Hence, if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, he will indulge in similar offences. Further, investigation in this regard is to be conducted after taking the petitioner into custodial interrogation, and only thereafter would it be revealed whether the petitioner committed any other similar acts. Hence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 19-01-2026 Mpa Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes

To 1.State through The Inspector of Police, Arni Town Police Station, Tiruvannamalai Disrict (In Crime No.

648 / 2025) 2.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

K.RAJASEKAR J.

mpa CRL OP No. 1036 of 19-01-2026