Madras High CourtCRL OP/16908/2025dismissed

Subramani v. The State Rep By, Inspector Of Police,

2025-09-18Honourable Mr.Justice K.Rajasekar6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 18.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.Nos.16908,16974, 17277 & 17287 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.Nos.13694, 12923, 13807 & 13808 of 2025 Crl.O.P.No.16908/2025:

Subramani ... Petitioner Vs.

The State, Rep by, Inspector of Police, Sipcot Police Station ... Respondent (Cr.No.148 of 2025) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.148 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. 1/6

Crl.O.P.No.17277/2025:

Muthukumaran ... Petitioner Vs.

The State, Rep by, Inspector of Police, Sipcot Police Station ... Respondent (Cr.No.147 of 2025) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.148 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner in all Crl.O.Ps : M/s.A.Pavithra Priyadarshini For Respondent in all Crl.O.Ps : Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For Intervernor in all Crl.O.P.s : Mr.K.A.Mariappan COMMON ORDER The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence under Section 465, 467, 468, 471, 420, 109, 34 of IPC, 2/6

1860 in Crime No.147 of 2025 & Crime No.148 of 2025 respectively, on the file of the respondent Police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that they falsely claimed ownership of the land situated in Survey No.60 (part), Plot No.23 (part), measuring to an extent of 3.50 cents in Karai Village, Walaja Taluk, Ranipet District. They approached the defacto complainant that they are willing to sell the same and accordingly, the defacto complainant entered into two agreements for sale with them, dated 03.04.2023 and 25.06.2025, under which he paid Rs.65 lakhs and Rs.56 lakhs respectively for two different portions of land. Subsequently, it was revealed that the petitioners were not the owners of the said property and they had cheated the defacto complainant. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is true the petitioners entered into an agreement with the defacto complainant. However, the said agreement was executed on the strength of an arrangement between the petitioners and the actual owner of the property, which was also communicated to the defacto complainant. It was only on that basis that the complainant agreed to purchase the property. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

3/6

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the defacto complainant has lodged two separate complaints based on two agreements relating to two different lands, involving a total amount of Rs.1.26 crores. He further submitted that the investigation in this case is still in progress. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. The learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that they were not aware of the arrangement between the original owner and the accused, and were only informed about such an arrangement without having seen the original document. He further stated that a huge sum of money had been transacted between the parties, and that he personally received only Rs.45 lakhs from accused No.2. Hence, he oppose to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6. I have perused the copy of agreement entered between both sides and have also produced before this Court.

7. In the agreement, it is recorded that the original owner, namely S. Vinayagam, is the owner of the property, and the petitioners entered into the agreement with the defacto complainant on his behalf. It is also established that an agreement had been executed between one Mrs. Vijaya Mookim and 4/6

Mr. A. Muthukumaran, and based on that arrangement, the petitioners entered into the agreement with the defacto complainant. Admittedly, the petitioners are not the owners of the property, yet they received a huge sum of money on the promise of selling the property. Considering the fact that substantial amount involved in this case, and these petitioners received the same and they claimed that they had some arrangements with original owner, but they have not prima facie established the same to seek any relief from this Court. Investigation in this case is also pending hence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

8. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions stands closed. 18.09.2025 ssi To 1.The District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Ranipet. 2.The Inspector of Police, Sipcot Police Station, 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 5/6

K.RAJASEKAR , J.

ssi Crl.O.P.Nos.16908,16974, 17277 & 17287 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.Nos.13694, 12923, 13807 & 13808 of 2025 18.09.2025 6/6