Manoj Kumar v. State Rep.By, The Sub-Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 02-02-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Manoj Kumar Petitioner(s) Vs State rep.by, The Sub-Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch-II, (Erstwhile ALGSC), Thiruvallur. Cr.No.11 of 2025.

Respondent(s) PRAYER Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS Act, 2023, praying to grant him anticipatory bail, enlarging him on bail in the event of his arrest by the respondent police in the above Cr.No.11 of 2025. For Petitioner(s):

M/S.S.R.R.Raaghhavan For Respondent(s):

Ms.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 420, 465, 468 & 471 of IPC, in Crime No.11 of 2025, on the file of the

respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is ranked as A4 and that he purchased the property from one Lakshmi/A3. It is specifically alleged that A3, by fabricating documents on the basis of a Power of Attorney executed in favour of her husband/A2, sold the property to A4 in the year 2013. Hence, the case has been registered.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is alleged by the defacto complainant that he purchased the property in the year 2014, which is situated in a different revenue village, and that the nature of the land is classified as housing plots. However, the petitioner had purchased the agricultural land as early as in the year 2013 from one of the original owners. The said land is situated in a different village. Without verifying these facts, the defacto complainant has lodged a false complaint. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the investigation in this case is pending and that, so far, no one is arrested. She further submitted that A1 and A2 in this case have died. Hence, she opposed for the grant of anticipatory bail

to the petitioner.

5.Considering the fact that the alleged sale transactions took place as early as 2013, and that materials have been produced before this Court to show that the civil proceedings were also initiated between the parties, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary, hence inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.

6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on her appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial MagistrateII, Thiruvallur, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions:

(a) If the petitioner fails to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;

(b) The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the application for surety ship (Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019]'. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of identify proofs to ensure their identity;

(c) 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; (d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on anticipatory bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560];

(e) If the petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

02-02-2026 gbi Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes

To 1.State rep.by, The Sub-Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch-II, (Erstwhile ALGSC), Thiruvallur. Cr.No.11 of 2025.

2.The Judicial Magistrate-II, Thiruvallur.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

K.RAJASEKAR J.

gbi CRL OP No. 1998 of 02-02-2026