P.Balasubramanian v. The State By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 24.06.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR P.Balasubramanian ... Petitioner Vs.

The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Karumathampatty Police Station, Coimbatore District.

(Crime No.104 of 2024) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in connection with Crime No.104 of 2024 on the file of respondent Police. For Petitioner :

Mr.A.Muthuprakash For Respondent :

Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the offences under Section 306 of IPC, in Crime No.104 of 2024, on the file of the respondent, seeks anticipatory bail. 1/4

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the husband of the de facto complainant/victim were known to each other. When the petitioner was facing financial difficulties, the victim, in order to help him, transferred 2.11 acre of his agricultural land to the petitioner through a registered sale deed. The petitioner, in turn, mortgaged the same and obtained a loan. Subsequently, the petitioner is alleged to have deceived the victim and unlawfully appropriated 90 cents of land belonging to him. Due to which, the victim, in a state of frustration, attempted to commit suicide by consuming pesticide and admitted in a hospital, however, he died without responding to the treatment. Hence the case.

3. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that the second son of the victim is a mentally challenged person and the petitioner had been assisting the victim with his medical needs. He also submitted that the victim, to meet his own financial requirements, had voluntarily executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner. However, it is now being projected as though the petitioner had cheated the victim. He also submitted that the petitioner had not abetted the victim to commit suicide and has involvement whatsoever in the alleged offence. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by 2/4

this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and opposed for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. He further submitted that the victim/deceased had also left the suicide note stating that the petitioner is the reason for his suicide.

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

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and taking note of the serious nature of the allegations, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 24.06.2025 ham To

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Sulur.

2. The Inspector of Police, Karumathampatty Police Station, Coimbatore District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

3/4

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

ham 24.06.2025 4/4