A. Malliga v. State By Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 14-05-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

1. A. Malliga W/o.Late.Arumugam Door No.90, West Kaatukottai, Rayappanur Village, Chinnasalem Taluk Kallakurichi District.

2. S Geetha Door No0.90, West Kaatukottai,Rayappanur Village,Chinnasalem TalukKallakurichi District.

..Petitioner(s) Vs State by Inspector of Police, Chinnasalem Police station Kallakurichi District Crime No.315 of 2025 ..Respondent(s) Prayer: This petition is filed under Section 482 of BNSS To grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the event of their arrest or surrender in connection with the case in Crime No.315 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police and pass such further or other orders as may be deemed fit and proper in these circumstances of this case and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s):

K. Ajithkumar For Respondent(s):

Mr.A. Gopinath, Government Advocate ( Crl side)

ORDER

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest in the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 316, 336, 318 of (BNS) 2023 in connection with the Cr. No.315 of 2025, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that there was a default in payment of tax, for which an order of attachment was obtained, and based on the said order, the attachment came to be lifted. It is alleged that the said attachment order is not the original order and that the petitioners, along with other accused, have fraudulently prepared the said attachment order, which is a forged one. Hence the case was registered.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that these petitioners are not the owners of the property in dispute and that the alleged occurrence is stated to have taken place on 21.05.2025, whereas the FIR was registered only on 06.08.2025. He further submitted the petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed anticipatory bail for the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that even though the property belongs to A1, the petitioners assisted for preparing the forged documents. He further submitted that there is no previous case pending against the petitioners. However, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioners.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 6.Considering the rival submissions on either side, considering the nature of allegations, the fact that the petitioners are not the owners of the property in dispute, the fact that the alleged occurrence is stated to have taken place on 21.05.2025, whereas the FIR was registered only on 06.08.2025. and that there is no previous case pending against the petitioners, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to the following conditions. 7.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Kallakurichi on condition that each of the petitioners shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only)

with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that: [a] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police at 10.00 a.m. on every Saturday until further orders;

[b] the petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; [c] the petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;

[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].

[f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.2023.

14-05-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order SMN/uma

Note :

1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.

2. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.

To

1. The Judicial Magistrate-II, Kallakurichi

2. The Inspector of Police, Chinnasalem Police station Kallakurichi District

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras

P.DHANABAL, J.

smn/uma 14-05-2026