Murugesan v. The State Rep.By, Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

1. Murugesan S/o. Chinnaiyan, No.1/38, Keela Theru, Seeyalam, Thirumayiladi Post, Sirkazhi Taluk, Mailaduthurai District.

2. Manikandan S/o. Ragu, No.2, Keela Theru, Seeyalam, Thirumayiladi Post, Sirkazhi Taluk, Mailaduthurai District.

3. Ragu S/o. Uthrapathi, No.2, Keela Theru, Seeyalam, Thirumayiladi Post, Sirkazhi Taluk, Mailaduthurai District.

4. Murali S/o. Chinnaiyan, No.2/100, East Street, Seeyalam, Thirumayiladi Post, Sirkazhi Taluk, Mailaduthurai District.

..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep.by, Inspector of Police, Anaikaranchathiram Police Station,

Mayiladuthurai District.

(Crime No.85 of 2026) ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the Petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest by the respondent police concerned in Crime No. 85 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. For Intervener:

Mr.S.Senthil Kumar For Petitioner(s):

M.Vinoth For Respondent(s):

Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 126(2), 296(b), 118(1), 324(4) & 351(3) of BNS in Crime No. 85 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners had fabricated a false legal heir certificate and, on that basis, obtained a sale deed in respect of the land belonging to the de facto complainant. In this connection, an FIR was registered on 24.02.2026.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He

further submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for anticipatory bail for the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) strongly opposed the petition on the ground that the investigation is still pending.

5. The learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that, apart from creating false documents, the petitioners had also assaulted them and obstructed them from removing the harvested crops, and therefore strongly opposed the grant of bail.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side.

7. From the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents, this Court finds that the entire issue primarily relates to the alleged fabrication of documents. It is also seen that the injured has been discharged from the hospital, and according to the prosecution, the injuries sustained by the de facto complainant are simple in nature.

8. Considering the above factual position, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions.

9. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on anticipatory 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 Judicial Magistrate, Sirkazhi, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate 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 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 stay at Trichy and sign before the Malaikotai police station daily at 10.30 a.m., and 05.30., p.m., until further orders.

(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 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 petitioners thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

17-03-2026 MPA To

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Sirkazhi.

2. The Inspector of Police, Anaikaranchathiram Police Station, Mayiladuthurai District.

(Crime No.85 of 2026)

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

MPA 17-03-2026