K Kannan v. The Union Territory Of Puducherry Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 25-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

1. K Kannan

2. Ramya ..Petitioner(s) Vs The Union Territory of Puducherry rep by The Inspector of Police, Reddiarpalayam Police Station, Puducherry.(Cr.No.78 of 2026) ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, pleased to enlarge the petitioners on Anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest by the respondent police in Crime No.78 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police The Inspector of Police, Reddiarpalayam Police Station, Puducherry.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.V.S.Senthil Kumar For Respondent(s):

Mr.Prakash Adiapadam for intervenor M/s.G.Djearany Government Advocate (Puducherry)

ORDER

The petitioners, apprehending arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 318 (4), 336 (3), 340 (2) and 3 (5) of BNS in Crime No.78 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners and the defactocomplainant are relatives. It is alleged that the first petitioner executed a settlement deed vide Doc.No.34026 of 2023 dated 06.11.2023 in favour of his

daughter, the second petitioner herein, for land measuring 2725 sqft, which encroached upon and included 1227 1⁄2 sqft of the defacto-complainant's property. The settlement deed executed by the first petitioner in favour of his daughter is allegedly forged and fabricated with ulterior motive to grabbing the defacto-complainant's property. Hence, the case. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the first petitioner settled only the property that absolutely belonged to him in favour of his daughter. Therefore, the question of cheating does not arise. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that the first petitioner acquired only 1497 1⁄2 sqft under Document No.5765 of 2003. However, in the settlement deed executed under Document No.34026 of 2023, he settled an extent of 2725 sqft. The intervenor contended that this clearly demonstrates criminal intention and cheating from the very beginning of the execution of the document. Therefore, he further contended that the petitioner's criminality cannot be lightly dealt with by enlarging them on anticipatory bail.

5.The learned Government Advocate (Puducherry) appearing for the respondent Police reiterated the intervenor's contention and opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6.I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 7.Upon looking into the factual position, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the intervenor, the first petitioner acquired only 1497 1⁄2 sqft under Document No.5765 of 2003. However, the subject document namely the settlement deed purports to transfer an area of 2725 sqft. According to the intervenor's counsel, this ulterior motive to grabbing the defacto-complainant's property cannot be simply brushed aside. This discrepancy clearly demonstrates criminal intention and cheating from the very beginning of the transaction. In such circumstances, the criminality involved cannot be treated lightly by enlarging the petitioners on bail. Hence, this is not a fit case to grant the petitioners anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

25-06-2026 ep

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

EP To 1.The Union Territory of Puducherry rep by The Inspector of Police, Reddiarpalayam Police Station, Puducherry.

2.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

25-06-2026 (2/2)