A.Ranganathan v. The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 13.10.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR 1.A.Ranganathan 2.R.Kanniyappan 3.T.Mathan 4.R.Pazhani ... Petitioners Vs.

The State Rep. By, The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch II, Tiruvannamalai District.

Crime No.6 of 2025 ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.6 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

For petitioners :

M/s.M.Rebecca For Respondent :

Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Criminal Side) 1/6

O R D E R

The petitioners herein apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC, in Crime No.6 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner owned certain land and sold the property in favour of one Munusamy in the year 2001. Subsequently, the said Munusamy executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of one Mohammed Ali. Later, in 2008, the father of the de facto complainant, Muthu, purchased the said property. Suppressing all these prior transactions, the first petitioner once again executed a settlement deed in favour of the second petitioner, even though the property had already been sold to the de facto complainant. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the first petitioner had not sold the property to any other person and that he continued to be in possession of the property. It was only at the time of applying for cancellation of patta that they came to know about the alleged 2/6

fraudulent transactions. He further submitted that, without their knowledge, third parties had been created and that they have already filed a separate civil suit for declaration. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police, reiterating the prosecution case, submitted that the first petitioner had sold the property as early as 2001, and thereafter, various civil transactions took place with respect to the disputed property. Now, by suppressing all these facts, the petitioners have executed a settlement deed in respect of the property belonging to the de facto complainant. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.

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

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, since the allegations against the petitioners pertain to the execution of the settlement deed and accusations are borne out by documentary evidence, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. Hence, 3/6

this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to certain conditions:

7. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruvannamalai, on condition that the petitioners 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 condition that: [a] if the petitioners fails to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within a period of ten 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 the identity proofs to ensure their identity;

[c] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police for a period of three weeks, and 4/6

thereafter, as and when required for interrogation; [d] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283];

[e] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S. 13.10.2025 cda To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruvannamalai. 2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch II, Tiruvannamalai District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

5/6

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

cda 13.10.2025 6/6