O.B.Rajendran v. State Rep. By Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23-03-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN CRL OP Nos. 7255 & 7257 of 2026 O.B.Rajendran S/o O.M. Bakthavatachalu, No. C66, Janvee Apartments, B-5 2nd Main Road, Thiruvenkada Nagar, Ambattur, Chennai - 600 053, ..Petitioner in both Crl.O.P.Nos.
Vs State rep. by Inspector of Police, CCB, Land Dispute Team - I, The Commissioner of Police, Avadi, Chennai 600 054.
(Crime No. 25 & 20 of 2026) ..Respondent in both Crl.O.P.Nos.
COMMON PRAYER : Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 25 & 20 of 2026 on the file the respondent-Police and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s):
K.Arunprasad For Respondent(s):
Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
COMMON ORDER The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.7257 of 2026 apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 & 420 of IPC in Crime No.20 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.7255 of 2026 apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 of IPC in Crime No.25 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution in Crl.O.P.No.7255 of 2026 is that the petitioner was the power of attorney holder in respect of the subject landed property, having obtained such power of attorney in the year 1986. Based on the said power of attorney, the petitioner sold the property to the de facto complainant's father. Thereafter, the petitioner is alleged to have sold the property to one Loganathan in the year 2007, and the said Loganathan, in turn, sold the subject property to two other persons in the year 2019. Hence, the complaint.
3. The case of the prosecution in Crl.O.P.No.7257 of 2026 is that the petitioner, being the power of attorney holder in respect of the subject landed property, sold the same as house plots to one Santha for a sum Rs.17,000/- in the year 1986. Subsequently, the very same property was sold to the defacto complainant in the year 2007 for a sum of Rs.3,27,000/-. Hence, the complaint.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had formed a layout on the strength of the power of attorney obtained in the year 1986 and sold the property to the de facto complainant. It is further contended that the property sold to Loganathan pertains to an adjacent survey number and not the very same property sold to the de facto complainant. Therefore, the allegation of the de facto complainant that the same property was sold to multiple persons does not arise and sought anticipatory bail for the petitioner.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the investigation in this case is pending. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the records available.
7. Considering the aforesaid submissions, this Court is of the firm view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required in cases of this nature. Hence, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail, subject to certain conditions.
8. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Poonamallee, 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 learned 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 trial Court everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks. (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.
23-03-2026 MPA To
1. The Judicial Magistrate-I, Poonamallee.
The Inspector of Police, CCB, Land Dispute Team - I, The Commissioner of Police, Avadi, Chennai 600 054.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
MPA CRL OP Nos. 7255 & 7257 of 2026 23-03-2026