Amutha v. Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 14.05.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP.No.12703 of 2026 Amutha W/o.Vijayakumar ... Petitioner Vs.

The State represented by its, The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch - II, Anti-Land Grabbing Special Cell, Perambalur District - 621212 Crime No.25 of 2025 ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under 482 of BNSS Act, 2023 to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.25 of 2025 on the file of the respondent Police.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Saravanan For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner apprehend arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 417 and 420 of IPC in Crime No.25 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

1/6

2.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the defacto complainant are acquainted with each other. The defact complainant approached the petitioner to obtain a patta; the defacto complainant handed over a copy of the sale agreement to the petitioner, who used it to obtain the patta in the defacto complainant's name. Subsequently, the petitioner forging the defacto complainant's signature, mortgaged the property in favour of Canara Bank and obtained a loan of Rs.10,00,000/- and thereby, cheated the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint.

3.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had not committed any offence as alleged and the petitioner had been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish substantial sureties for her due release and abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court and therefore, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4.

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the defact complainant approached the petitioner to obtain a patta; the defacto complainant 2/6

handed over a copy of the sale agreement to the petitioner, who used it to obtain the patta in the defacto complainant's name. Subsequently, the petitioner forging the defacto complainant's signature, mortgated the property in favour of Canara Bank and obtained a loan of Rs.10,00,000/- and thereby, cheated the defacto complainant. He further submitted that no previous case is pending against the petitioner and also onsidering the gravity of offence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the rival submissions made on either side and Considering the nature of offences, even according to the prosecution, the alleged occurred took place on 19.12.2018, but the FIR has been registered belatedly on 15.07.2025 and no previous case is pending against the petitioner and since the FIR has been registered on 15.07.2025, by this time investigation might have been completed and there is a property dispute between the parties, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in 3/6

the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Perambalur on condition that the petitioner shall execute a 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that: [a] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police on everyday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders; [b] the petitioner 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 then from disclosing such facts of the Court or to any police officer. [c] the petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

[e] the petitioner shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. [f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the 4/6

learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner 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].

[g] If the petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

14.05.2026 mac 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 No.I, Perambalur

2. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch - II, Anti-Land Grabbing Special Cell, Perambalur District - 621212 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 5/6

P.DHANABAL , J.

mac CRL OP.No.12703 of 2026 14.05.2026 6/6