Venugopal v. State Represented By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 16-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

1. Venugopal Son of Beggilappa JeeMangalam Village Bagalur post Hosur, Krishnagiri.

2. Vijayalakshmi JeeMangalam VillageBagalur postHosur, Krishnagiri ..Petitioner(s) Vs State Represented by Sub Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Krishnagiri (Crime No.0007/2026) ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS, praying to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.0007/2026, on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s):

Ms.R. Poornima For Respondent(s):

Mr.N.Palanivel, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For Intervenor(s):

Mr.M.Vimal Bobby Crimson

Order The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120B of Indian Penal Code, in Crime No.7 of 2026, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant had purchased certain landed property situated at Kanimangalam Village, Hosur Taluk, and the same was duly registered in the year 1995. It is alleged that the accused persons, taking advantage of the old age of the complainant and his wife, created forged Aadhaar cards and fabricated a General Power of Attorney in their names without their knowledge or consent and thereafter executed sale deeds in favour of third parties, thereby unlawfully alienating the said property. Hence the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had purchased the sub land during the year 2019. Totally, there are seven accused in this case. The first petitioner is A1 and the second petitioner is A4, both are husband and wife. The petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioners are ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent.

6. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the records available.

7. It is the contention of the petitioner that though they had purchased the subject property in the year 2019, the defacto complainant claims ownership over the same. Upon perusal of the records, it is seen that the alleged occurrence pertains to the year 2019, while the FIR came to be registered only on 20.04.2026. Having regard to the considerable delay in the registration of the FIR, the nature of the dispute and it is also relevant to mention that the second petitioner is also a woman, this Court is of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are not required at this point of time and this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail.

8. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate - I, Hosur, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- each (Rupees Twenty 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 fail 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 annexeds 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 first petitioner shall report and sign before the respondent police daily at 10.30 am for a period of two weeks and there after as and when required for interrogation; (d) The second petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation; (e) 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];

(f) If the petitioners thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

16-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order AH To 1.The Sub Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Krishnagiri.

2.The Judicial Magistrate - I, Hosur.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN J.

AH 16-06-2026