Abdul Hadi v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep.By Its,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 04-02-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Abdul Hadi S/o.Noor Mohamed, No.1/100, Kayuthe Millath 1st street, Palavakkam, Thiruvanmiyur-600 041.

..Petitioner(s) Vs The State of Tamilnadu rep.by its, Inspector of Police, Saidapet Police Station, Adyar, Cr.No.211 of 2025.

..Respondent(s) PRAYER: To enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.211 of 2025 on the file of respondent police and any other order as this Honble court.

For Petitioner(s):

M/s.B.Ram Prasath 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 465, 467, 468, 471, 419 and 420 of IPC in Crime No.211 of 2025, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is the brother of A1 and for the purpose of enriching themselves they colluded with A3 and as per the conspiracy hatched between A1 to A3 they arranged A4 impersonator and shown him as the owner of the property and came forward to sell the land belonging to the de facto complainant in favour of one Balasubramaniam and for the purpose of concluding the said transaction the petitioner has obtained power of attorney from A4 impersonator and subsequently A2/petitioner herein has sold the property in favour of the purchaser. Hence, the case has been registered.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a cardiac patient and is ready to cooperate with the investigation and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Therefore, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the

respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner is the main accused in this case and he obtained power of attorney and he is knowing fully well A4 is not the owner of the property and further he is also an impersonator. Further it is a case of conspiracy and collusion between A1 to A3 and a sale deed has been executed. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the fact that it is a case of collusion between A1 to A4 and fabrication and impersonation etc., this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

04-02-2026 MPA To

1. The State of Tamilnadu rep.by its, Inspector of Police, Saidapet Police Station, Adyar, Cr.No.211 of 2025.

2.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

MPA 04-02-2026