Revathy v. The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep.By,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 17.04.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Revathy ... Petitioner Vs.

State represented by The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Tambaram City Police, Sholinganallur, Chennai.

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 petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest by the respondent police in the above Cr.No.60 of 2026 on the file of the respondent.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ragavachari, Senior Counsel for Mr.Ashwin Prasad For Respondent : Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.J.Ashok

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC, in Crime No.60 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. 1/6

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner along with other accused allegedly impersonated and created forged documents in respect of the property belonging to the defacto complainant and thereby attempted to grab the same. Based on the complaint, the respondent police registered the present FIR.

3. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that originally, the property belongs to one Sambamoorthy and he passed away during 2002, however an impersonation took place and the said property was transferred in the name of Uma Maheshwari, who is arrayed as A4. He would further submit that, this petitioner is a victim as he has purchased the property from Uma Maheshwari on 28.02.2022 and she is the bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration and she had spent about Rs.67 lakhs for the purchase of 2400/- sq. ft at Sholinganallur Village. He would further submit that they have got the legal opinion and based upon the legal opinion, the Bank also sanctioned loan to them and would further submit that, even according to the revenue records, the property stands in the name of Uma Maheshwari . He would further submit that, according to the sale deed which was registered on 24.08.2023, the money has been transferred to Uma Maheshwari through RTGS. Hence, he would submit that the entire transaction would clearly 2/6

demonstrate that she is the bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration and apart from that, the petitioner can only be termed as victim and not an accused. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The said contention was totally objected by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) and he would submit that if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, it would jeopardize the prosecution case as other accused A4, A6 & A7 are still absconding and that involvement of others has to be identified.

5. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, A8 already arrested and released on bail.

6. From the factual position, it is clear that the petitioner had purchased the property from one Uma Maheshwari and that from the perusal of the revenue records, the patta stands in the name of Uma Maheshwari and according to the reference in the sale deed, she paid the amount to the tune of Rs.67 lakhs through bank transaction. It is also relevant to mention here that, when the petitioner had mortgaged the property at YES Bank and on proper verification, they have also sanctioned the loan to the tune of Rs.1.4 Crores. 3/6

In such factual scenario, this Court is of the firm view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required and apart from that petitioner is a women, hence this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7.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 No.I, Alandur, 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 daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of 30 days and 4/6

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 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.

17.04.2026 sma To

1. Judicial Magistrate No.I, Alandur.

2.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Tambaram City Police, Sholinganallur, Chennai.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

5/6

C.KUMARAPPAN.J.

sma 17.04.2026 6/6