Anandaramakrishnan v. State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.03.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN 1.Anandaramakrishnan 2.Revathi 3.Manikandan ... Petitioners Vs.
The State rep by The Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Tambaram.
(Crime No.60 of 2026) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.60 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners : Mr.T.Arul For Respondent : Mr.P.Dhileepan, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 1/4
ORDER
The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of IPC, in Crime No.60 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, along with other accused, allegedly impersonated and created forged documents in respect of the property belonging to the de facto complainant and thereby attempted to grab the same. Based on the complaint, the respondent police registered the present FIR.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the first petitioner, being the Director of M/s. Sea Shelter Warehouse Pvt. Ltd., had purchased the property in Plot No.306, measuring 2400 sq.ft., from one Umamageshwari (A4) for valid sale consideration. He further submitted that the petitioners had also mortgaged the property with YES Bank and availed a loan, which was duly registered on 04.08.2023 in Document No.10231 of 2023, and that they are bona fide purchasers without knowledge of any alleged fraud. 2/4
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the petitioners are arrayed as A5 in the FIR and that they had purchased the property from A1 and A2. He further submitted that, if the petitioners are enlarged on anticipatory bail, it would prejudice the prosecution case and hence opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.
5. It is seen that the third petitioner, namely Manikandan, has already been arrested on 17.03.2026 and hence, the anticipatory bail application as against him stands dismissed. Insofar as the other petitioners are concerned, considering the nature of the allegations and the circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any merit in this application. Hence, this criminal original petition is dismissed.
18.03.2026 cda 3/4
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
cda To 1.The Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Tambaram.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
18.03.2026 4/4