Seenuvasan@ Srinivasan v. State Represented By The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.14823 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.10657 of 2025 Seenuvasan @ Srinivasan .. Petitioner/A4 Vs.
State rep by The Inspector of Police Pudupettai Police Station, Cuddalore District.
... Respondent / Complainant (Cr.No.139 of 2025) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.139 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner :
Mr.S.N.Arunkumar For Respondent :
Mr.S.Udayakumar Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) For Intervenor :
Mr.K.R.Ashwin Kumar
O R D E R
The petitioner herein, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 120, 318, 355, 336, 337 and 338 of BNS Act, 2023 and Section 82(a) of Registration Act, 1/5
1908 in Crime No.139 of 2025 on the file of the respondent, seeks anticipatory bail.
2.Originally, the subject matter of the land belongs to the defacto complainant. The allegation against this petitioner is that, the petitioner as a document writer joined hands with the other accused and created a bogus patta and other documents, as if the land belongs to A1 and his family members.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is only a document writer, he was not aware of the documents produced before him and only acted at the request of A1 for preparing the sale deed and helped for registering the same. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4.The learned counsel for the intervenor also reiterated the prosecution case and opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) reported that 2/5
originally the land belongs to the defacto complainant and suppressing the same, the accused persons created a bogus document as if the land belong to A1 and his family members and registered the sale deed. The specific overtact as against this petitioner is that he had helped for preparing and registering the sale deed. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6.Since the allegation is relating to fabrication of forged documents and the petitioner is also alleged to have a major role in preparing and registering the forged documents, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 18.09.2025 smv To 1.The Inspector of Police 3/5
Pudupettai Police Station, Cuddalore District.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
K.RAJASEKAR, J.
smv 4/5
Crl.O.P.No.14823 of 2025 18.09.2025 5/5