Agri Murugesan v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 05.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Agri Murugesan ... Petitioner Vs.

The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Thirupathiripuliyur, Cuddalore.

(Crime No.166 of 2026) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to enlarge the petitioner's anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.166 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mohameduduman For Intervenor :

Mr.M.Kavikannan For Respondent : Mrs.R.S.Indira, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 296(b), 140(2), 308(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, in Crime No.166 of 2026, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail. 1/6

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and the de facto complainant entered into a sale agreement and, in furtherance thereof, the petitioner had parted with a sum of Rs.2 crores to the de facto complainant. However, instead of selling the property to the petitioner, the de facto complainant sold the property to a third party. In this connection, a civil suit is pending and only in order to wriggle out of the civil proceedings, the de facto complainant has given a false complaint. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the intervenor would submit that the de facto complainant is aged about 79 years and that the petitioner had kidnapped him and obtained certain signatures on blank papers. He would further submit that, if the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail, he would tamper with the witnesses.

4. The said contention was reiterated by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police, who opposed the anticipatory bail application and submitted that the petitioner has two previous cases, which are not similar in nature. He would further submit that 2/6

one of the cases relates to trespass into land and that civil proceedings are also pending in respect of the same.

5. Though there are serious allegations, while looking into the factual position, there was a sale agreement between the petitioner and the de facto complainant. Even according to the prosecution case, after taking the de facto complainant to some other place, the petitioner himself had dropped him at the Virudhachalam Bus Stand. Therefore, in such a scenario, this Court is of the firm view that, at this length of time, further custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Apart from that, the petitioner is a senior citizen aged about 65 years. Hence, taking into consideration the age of the petitioner and the further fact that the de facto complainant was dropped by the petitioner on the very same day, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail, subject to certain conditions. However, it is made clear that any of the observations made herein shall have no bearing on any civil proceedings between the parties.

6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from 3/6

the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Cuddalore, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (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 petitioner fails 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 annexed 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 petitioner shall stay at Coimbatore and report before the Inspector of Police, E2 Peelamedu Police Station, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore District, daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of 30 days, and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;

(d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate 4/6

actions against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner 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];

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

05.06.2026 (1/2) cda To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.III, Cuddalore.

2.The Inspector of Police, Thirupathiripuliyur, Cuddalore.

3.The Inspector of Police, E2 Peelamedu Police Station, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore District.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

5/6

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

cda 05.06.2026 (1/2) 6/6