Padmavathi v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11-02-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
1. Padmavathi W/o.Dilli, Residing at No.123, Risemil street, Echankaranai Village, Chengalpattu District.
2. Dilli S/o.Doss, Residing at No.123, Risemil street, Echankaranai Village, Chengalpattu District.
Petitioners in Crl.O.P.2203 of 2026
1. Vengatesan S/o.Velayutham, No.39 A, Good Will Nagar, Kayaramredu, Kanchepuram District.
Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.2055 of Vs
State of Tamilnadu rep.by, The Inspector of Police, CCB-Tambaram Tambaram City, Chengalpattu District.
Cr.No.75 of 2025.
..Respondent in both Crl.O.P'
COMMON PRAYER: To enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest by the respondent police in Cr.No.75 of 2025 on the file of respondent police.
For Petitioner in both Crl.O.P's M/S.Sarath Chandran For Respondent in both Crl.O.P's M/S.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl.Side) COMMON ORDER The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w. 120(B) IPC in Crime No. 75 of 2025, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that originally the land to the extent of 3.30 sq.ft belongs to one C.R.V.Panth and the de facto complainant is the only son. A1 in this case claiming herself as a mother of the C.R.V.Panth and A2 claiming herself as a legal heir and daughter of the C.R.V.Panth, they have executed a sale deed in favour of A3 and based on the sale deed, A3 has executed a settlement deed in favour of A4. It is alleged that there is a collusion
between all the accused, knowing fully well both A1 and A2 are not the legal heirs of the C.R.V.Panth, the documents have been executed and land has been grabbed. Hence, the case has been registered.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners/A3 & A4 in Crl.O.P.No.2203 of 2026 submits that they are the innocent purchasers and they have paid Rs.10 lakhs as sale consideration and they purchased the said land only recently in the year 2022 and there have also patta and other documents which were produced at the time of execution of sale deed. Hence, he prays for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/A5 in Crl.O.P.No.2055 of 2026 submits that C.R.V.Panth was having two wives and A2 is the born to another wife and she is also a legal heir and since she is the legal heir, A5 has come forward to attest the documents and it is not a fabricated as alleged. Hence, he prays for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that A1 in this case died and A2 is an impersonator, no one arrested in this case and A5 also actively participated in fabrication of legal heir certificate and other documents and he is the one, who knew about the land and who played a major role in
fabrication of records. Hence, she vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
6. Considering the factual circumstances more particularly the role of A1, A2 and A5, this Court is of the view that it is a case of fabrication of records and land grabbing, hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/A5 in Crl.O.P.No.2055 of 2026 is concerned. Accordingly, the petition in Crl.O.P.No.2055 of 2026 is dismissed.
7. As far as A3 and A4 are concerned, it is alleged that they are the purchasers of the property in the year 2022, I am of the view that they are entitled for grant of anticipatory bail, accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.2203 of 2026 is concerned with certain conditions.
8. Accordingly, the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.2203 of 2026 are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only), with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further condition:
(a) If the petitioners 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 petitioners 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on 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 accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.
11-02-2026 MPA
To 1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram.
2. State of Tamilnadu rep.by, The Inspector of Police, CCB-Tambaram Tambaram City, Chengalpattu District.
Cr.No.75 of 2025.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
K.RAJASEKAR, J.
MPA 11-02-2026