G Shanmugasundaram v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.04.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN and Crl.M.P.No.7084 of 2026 G.Shanmugasundaram .... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.8496 of 2026 1.Manzoor @ A.k.Mansoor
2. A.Noor Beevi @ Noorjahan
3. R.Fathima Beevi 4.A.Shamshad Beevi @ H.Shamshath 5.Hazara Beevi @ Hajirabeevi
6. A.K.Abdul Raheem @ Abdul Rahim .... Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.8869 of 2026.
Vs.
State represented by The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Tambaram City, Chennai - 600 119.
Crime No.44 of 2026 ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest by the respondent police in the above Cr.No.44 of 2026 on the file of the respondent.
1/7
For Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.8496 of 2026 : Mr.J.Jayan For Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.8869 of 2026 : Mr.R.Jayaprakash For Respondent : Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.D.Dayalan
ORDER
The petitioners apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120(b) of IPC, in Crime No.44 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that originally the subject land measuring 78 cents belong to one E.A.Kareem and he sold the said ( 3 plots) each measuring 26 cents to various persons between 1973 to 1975 and in the meanwhile he died on 05.02.1983 and thereafter, the legal heirs of Kareem filed suit in O.S.No.64 of 2006 and O.S.No.77 of 2008 for the relief of declaration to declare that the sale deed executed by Kareem was null and void and however the suit was dismissed and after the dismissal of the suit, without having the title over the property, they had executed a sale deed in respect of the very same property which belongs to the defacto complainant 2/7
to various third parties. The 9th accused, who is the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.8496 of 2026 is one among the purchaser and the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.8869 of 2026 are the legal heirs of the Kareem.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the there are 15 accused in this case and A13, A14 and A15 were already granted anticipatory bail by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge. He further submitted that petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.8496 of 2026 is the 9th accused and according to the prosecution, he is the subsequent purchaser and the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.8869 of 2026 are ranked as A3 to A8. He is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court and hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the petitioners are land grabbers and that only to defeat the rights of the original owner, they entered into such sale deed and therefore, he would contend that, if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, it would indulge in tampering the witnesses and therefore, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
3/7
5. The learned counsel for the intervenor also vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6. Now, the point for consideration is whether the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required or not. From the factual scenario, A13, A14 & 15 were already granted anticipatory bail. The said factum was not seriously disputed by the learned Government Advocate. Admittedly A1 & A2 were already died. Now, the entire issue revolves around the validity of the documents executed by the legal heirs of said Kareem as he already sold the property to the defacto complainant and other individuals. While looking into the charge against the petitioners, the maximum punishment is upto 7 years. In such view of the factual position and upon the fact that the entire issue revolves around the documentary evidence, this Court is of the firm view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required.
Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 7.Accordingly, the petitioners are 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 No.
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 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., for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required;
(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 absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act. 17.04.2026 sma 5/7
To
1. Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram 2.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Tambaram City, Chennai - 600 119.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
6/7
C.KUMARAPPAN.J.
sma 17.04.2026 (1/2) 7/7