M. Pushpa v. State Rep By The Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.06.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN M.Pushpa ... Petitioner Vs.
State rep by:
The Inspector of Police Central Crime Branch-Tambaram, Tambaram City.
(Crime No.45 of 2026) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in event of their arrest in Crime No.45 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent Police.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Venkatesan For Respondent : Mr.N.Palanivel Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
O R D E R
The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 & 120B of IPC (corresponding Sections 319(2), 318(4), 336(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2) & 61 (2) of BNS in Crime No.45 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. 1/6
2. The case of the prosecution is that the property originally belonged to the de facto complainant's mother, Loordhammal. It is alleged that one Fatima Satya, by falsely claiming herself to be the sole legal heir of the deceased Loordhammal, impersonated the de facto complainant and executed a Settlement Deed dated 23.09.2022 in favour of her daughter, M. Rama, by using forged documents. The petitioner is alleged to have attested the said document as one of the witnesses. Hence, the complaint.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and she has not committed any offence as alleged by the defacto complainant and she has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that she is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions. 2/6
6. From the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and the materials available on record, it is seen that A1 is alleged to have impersonated the de facto complainant and executed a settlement deed in favour of his daughter, who is arrayed as A2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is in no way related to the family of A1 and A2 and that her role is confined only to attesting the settlement deed as a witness. Further, the attestation is stated to have taken place on 23.09.2022, whereas the present First Information Report came to be registered only on 20.02.2026. Taking into consideration the age and gender of the petitioner, coupled with the fact that the occurrence relates to the year 2022 and the FIR came to be registered only in February 2026, this Court is of the considered view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required at this length of time. Hence, 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 the event of arrest or on her 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, Tambaram 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 3/6
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 report before the respondent Police 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 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.
04.06.2026 kv 4/6
To 1.The Judicial Magistrate-I, Tambaram.
2.The Inspector of Police Central Crime Branch-Tambaram, Tambaram City.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 5/6
C.KUMARAPPAN.J.
kv 04.06.2026 6/6