Mani v. The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 14-07-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN Mani Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District. (Crime No. 3 of 2025) Respondent(s) PRAYER This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of BNSS to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 3 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.K.G.Senthil Kumar For Respondent(s):

Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Govt Advocate (Crl Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 319, 336, 338, 340, 318 and 3(5) of BNS (Section 416, 420, 465, 467, 471 r/w 34 of I.P.C., in Crime No.3 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The prosecution alleges that Yuvraj (A1) created a fake General Power of Attorney impersonating Revathi, the owner of 0.83 cents of land in Kanchipuram Taluk. Based on this forged document, two sale deeds were executed in favor of Vivek Govindaraj (A2) and Pachamuthu (A3 for portions of the land. Hence, the case.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and she has been falsely implicated in this case. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed for anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police, reiterated the prosecution's case and submitted that Yuvraj (A1) created a fake General Power of Attorney impersonating Revathi, the owner of 0.83 cents of land in Kanchipuram Taluk. Based on this forged document, two sale deeds were executed in favor of Vivek Govindaraj (A2) and Pachamuthu (A3 for portions of the land. Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent Police and perused the materials available on record.

6. Taking into consideration the allegations against the petitioner and taking note of the fact that the case is of grievous offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. In view of the above submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 14-07-2025 gbi Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes

To 1.The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District. (Crime No. 3 of 2025) 2.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kanchipuram.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN J.

gbi CRL OP No. 15188 of 14-07-2025