Manimaran v. The State Represented By The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.04.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
1. Manimaran
2. Balamurugan ... Petitioners Vs.
The State represented by The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Cuddalore District.
Crime No.53 of 2025 ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners in the event of their arrest in Crime No.53 of 2025 on the file of the District Crime Branch, Cuddalore District.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.K.Gandhi For Respondent : Mr. P. Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervener : Mr.C.Ramkumar and Mr.S.N.Arunkumar
O R D E R
The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 318 (4) and 351(2) of BNS and Section 81 of the Registration Act, 1908 in Crime No.53 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.
1/6
2. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant was engaged in a real estate business along with the petitioners/A1 and A2 since 2010, offering plots on an installment basis under a scheme wherein 1,152 members subscribed by paying Rs.2,000/- for a period of 27 months. It is further alleged that A1 and A2 failed to register the remaining plots and, instead, fraudulently registered them in the names of A2's wife and A1's relatives, despite the objection raised by the de facto complainant on 18.11.2024.
It is the further case of the prosecution that, in connection with the said business, the de facto complainant had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of A1 and, taking advantage of the same, three sale deeds came to be executed in the year 2025 in favour of third parties, allegedly by fabricating a Life Certificate purported to have been issued by a Government Doctor. On enquiry, it was revealed that the said certificate had not been issued by the concerned doctor. According to the prosecution, all the accused had conspired together and cheated the de facto complainant of plots worth approximately Rs.5,00,00,000/-, which were meant for the benefit of the subscribing members. Hence, the complaint.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the defacto complainant and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He 2/6
further submitted that they are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the case of the prosecution and submitted that the petitioners have cheated a huge sum of Rs.5 Crores. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5. From the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, it is seen that the only allegation against A1 is that, based upon the Power of Attorney standing in his name, he had created a fabricated Life Certificate and executed sale deeds in favour of the other accused. The learned counsel for the intervener would submit that, by executing the said sale deeds, the petitioners have cheated to the tune of approximately Rs.5 Crores. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, even assuming that the petitioners have cheated a sum of Rs.5 Crores, there is no necessity for custodial interrogation, as the entire transaction is based on documents. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that, since the entire issue revolves around a land dispute and the Power of Attorney, and considering the fact that the First Information Report came to be registered on 29.10.2025, at this length 3/6
of time, no custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions.
6. Accordingly, the petitioners 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 is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore District, on condition that each of the petitioners 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 petitioners 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 petitioners shall report before the respondent Police, daily at 10.30 a.m., and 5.30 p.m., for a period of 30 days and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;
4/6
(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 abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.
10.04.2026 1/2 kv To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore District. 2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Cuddalore District.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 5/6
C.KUMARAPPAN.J.
kv 10.04.2026 1/2 6/6