R Sathish Kumar v. State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 28-10-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR AND CRL MP NO. 14503 OF 2025,CRL OP NO. 11748 OF 2025 R Sathish Kumar Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep. By The Inspector of Police, CCB Avadi (Crime No.47 / 2025) Respondent(s) CRL OP No. 11748 of 2025 R.Sathish Kumar Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Ccb avadi Crime No.41 of 2025 Respondent(s) PRAYER To enlarge the Petitioner on Anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest by the Respondent Police in Cr. No. 47 of 2025 on the file of the respondent the Inspector of Police, CCB Avadi.

CRL OP No. 11748 of 2025 PRAYER To enlarge the Petitioner on Anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest by the Respondent Police in Cr. No. 41 of 2025 on the file of the respondent the Inspector of Police, CCB Avadi.

CRL OP No. 11749 & 11749 of 2025 For Petitioner(s):

T.G.Ravichandran For Intervenor Mr.M.Jai Kumar For Respondent(s):

Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate Crl.side COMMON ORDER The petitioner in Crl OP No.11749 of 2025, who apprehends the arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 419, 465, 468 and 420 of IPC, in Crime No.47 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The petitioner in Crl OP No.11748 of 2025, who apprehends the arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 409, 419, 468, 467, 471 and 420 of IPC, in Crime No.41 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 3.The allegation against the petitioner, namely R Sathish Kumar in Crime No.41 of 2025 is that the defacto complainant was approached by the petitioner herein for the sale of land belongs to one Kowslya and he after verification, of

documents produced before him, without knowing the fact that original owner Kowsalya was not aware about the intention of the accused herein, expressed interest to purchase the same by paying a sum of Rs.9,76,000/- and accordingly, the petitioner joining hands with two other accused including one impersonator of the original owner namely Kowslya, sold the land to the defacto complainant, and cheated the defacto complainant.

4.As fas as the case in Crime No.47 of 2025 is concerned, the complaint has been lodged by the original owner Kowslya and she alleges that the petitioner herein is brother and she had handed over the sale deed for the purpose of getting some revenue records and taking advantage of their relationship, the petitioner by engaging another lady namely Shantha, made her to impersonate as owner and executed the sale deed in favour of one Prakash i.e., the defacto complainant in Crime No.41 of 2025. Hence, the case. 5.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for one single cause of action two complaints have been lodged and the petitioner only assisted his sister to sell the property and he has not impersonated or collected any money in this regard and he further submitted that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6.The learned counsel for the Intervenor namely, Prakash (defacto complainant in Crime No.41/2025) submitted that the petitioner herein, after having negotiated with him, he purchased the property and the petitioner made all the arrangements including bringing impersonator of Kowslya. Hence, he opposed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondent police submitted that two cases have been registered for the same cause of action since one lodged by the purchaser and other one lodged by the original owner of the land. Though both the complaints were registered separately, investigated jointly. He further submitted that the investigation in this case is pending. Hence, he opposed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 8.Considering the fact that it is not only the case of cheating and it is also the case of fabrication of records, impersonation and the petitioner has allegedly played major role in these transactions and hence granting anticipatory bail would hamper the investigation.

9.Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed. 28-10-2025 1/2 gbi

To 1.State Rep. By The Inspector of Police, CCB Avadi (Crime No.47 / 2025) 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of madras.

K.RAJASEKAR J.

gbi CRL OP No. 11749 of AND CRL MP NO.

14503 OF 2025,CRL OP NO. 11748 OF 2025 28-10-2025