Rasheetha B v. State Represented By Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 01.04.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Rasheetha B ... Petitioner Vs.

The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, CCB, Tambaram City, Tambaram.

Crime No.43 of 2026 ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to enlarge the petitioner's anticipatory bail in the event of her arrest in Crime No.43 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Gunasekaran For Respondent : Mr.P.Dhileepan, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 1/6

120B IPC, in Crime No.43 of 2026, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant and his wife are in possession and enjoyment of certain extents of land at Kilkattalai Village, and they had purchased the same through registered sale deeds. It is alleged that subsequently, one Mumtaz Beevi, without having valid title, executed a forged General Power of Attorney in favour of third parties on 22.01.2014 and, based on the same, several documents including sale agreements and settlement deeds were created in respect of the very same property. On a complaint, the District Registrar conducted an enquiry and found that the documents were fraudulently created through impersonation, and consequently, a case in Crime No.43 of 2026 has been registered.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has only acted as a power agent and has nothing to do with the alleged offences. He would further submit that the petitioner has no previous criminal antecedents and is ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail. 2/6

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that a power of attorney was executed by a person who had no title over the property and, based on such power of attorney, certain documents were created. He would further submit that the document alleged to have been fabricated was subsequently cancelled by the Registering Authority and the petitioner is also implicated in the said transaction.

5. While looking into the factual position, the occurrence is said to have taken place on 22.01.2014 and the FIR was registered on 19.02.2026. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and the fact that, in this type of offence, no custodial interrogation is required, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail, subject to the following conditions:

6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on her appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram, 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 3/6

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 twice a day at 10.30 am and 5.30 pm. for a period of 30 days 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.

01.04.2026 cda 4/6

To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram.

2.The Inspector of Police, CCB, Tambaram City, Tambaram.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

5/6

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

cda 01.04.2026 6/6