Sriram Mohan v. The State Represented By The Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23-03-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Sriram Mohan Son of Jeevanantham, No. 74, Diwan Bhagadhur Road, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore-641002.
..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Represented by The Inspector of Police Selvapuram Police Station, Coimbatore City,, in Crime No. 327 of 2025 ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner/accused No.3 on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 327 of 2025 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police and pass such other order as Your Lordships may deem lit and proper and the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.
For Petitioner(s):
M/s.K.Madhu For Respondent(s):
Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC in Crime No.327 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he, along with other accused, fabricated a Will purported to have been executed by one Sathyamurthy, who is the father of the defaccto complainant's wife. Hence, the complaint.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was earlier granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Criminal O.P. No. 31502 of 2025, by order dated 19.11.2025. However, due to the medical condition of the petitioner's mother, the petitioner was not in a position to comply with the conditions imposed by this Court in the said order. Consequently, the learned Magistrate, by order dated 03.02.2026 in C.M.P. No. 476 of 2026, cancelled the bail on account of such non-compliance. Hence, he seeks the grant of anticipatory bail.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the issue is predominantly civil in nature and that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. He further submitted that there is no serious objections to granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. However, it is contended that since the petitioner failed to comply with the earlier conditions and the bail was cancelled, he is not entitled to anticipatory bail.
5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the records available.
6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Criminal O.P. No. 31502 of 2025, dated 19.11.2025. However, the same was subsequently cancelled solely on the ground of non-compliance with the conditions stipulated therein. The petitioner has explained that such noncompliance was due to the ailment of his mother and that, before he could seek extension of time, the bail came to be cancelled by the learned Magistrate vide dated 03.02.2026 in C.M.P. No. 476 of 202.
7. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Considering the nature of the case and the explanation offered for the earlier noncompliance, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, 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-V, Coimbatore, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a
bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five 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 respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of three 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.
23-03-2026 MPA To
1. The Judicial Magistrate-V, Coimbatore.
2.The Inspector of Police Selvapuram Police Station, Coimbatore City,, in Crime No. 327 of 2025 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
MPA 23-03-2026