Moorthy v. State Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 26-09-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR CRL OP No. 17919 and 18008 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.Nos.14755 and 14846 of 2025

1. Moorthy S/o.Mandanagopal, No.4, 3rd Cross Street, Venugopal Nagar, Thirumullaivoyal, Thiruvallur District.

Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.17919 of 2025

1. Saravanan S/o. Vadivelu, No.1/38, Paandurangapuram, Padi, Thiruvallur District - 600050 2.Mahendran

3. Gopi @ Gopinath Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.18008 of 2025 Vs

1. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch Police Station, Avadi, Thiruvallur District. Crime No. 72 of Respondent in both Crl.O.Ps

COMMON PRAYER To enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Cr.No.72 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police, pending investigation and thus render justice.

For Petitioner(s):

M.Velmurugan-ms/1270/1995 Girija Velmurugan K.S.Elangovan-ms/419/1996 R.N. Kasi Vishwanathanms/4597/2018 V.Sriram G.Keerthi K.Chitra K.S.Abineswaran S.Sumedh Srinivas B.Pavithra For Respondent(s):

Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervener : Mr.D.Jeyaraj COMMON ORDER The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 120(b), 465, 468, 467, 471 and 420 of IPC in Crime No.72 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that they purchased land in the year 1994 from one of the legal heir's of original owner namely Rajendran and they have converted the same into layouts and sold plots to various persons. It

is further alleged that the petitioners and others are fabricating various documents and and selling the land by impersonating dead persons.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners purchased the land from the legal heirs of the original land owner in the year 1994, after converting it into flats, and selling the same and after lapse of several decades, some of legal heirs of the Rajendran filed a complaint, as if they are having rights over the lands and alleging that the petitioners are fabricating documents and selling the land. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned counsel for the intervener submitted that defacto compalinant is one of the legal heirs and allegation against these petitioners is that the petitioners have sold 8 acres of excess land by fabricating records and requested investigation and opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. The Government Advocate (Crl.side) reported that the occurrence alleged in the FIR revealed that various documents were said to have been executed as early as in the year 1994 to 2007 and further the petitioners are even

now dealing with the lands. He further submitted that investigation is pending. Hence opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6. Considering the fact that, the petitioners have purchased lands in the year 1994, after converting the land into layout-housing plots they sold lands to various persons during 1994 to 2007, the validity of their right to execute the sale deed is questioned after almost 15 years and offences alleged against the petitioners is based on documents, I am of the view that custodial interrogation is not necessary, and I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with 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 fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Ponneri, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only), with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further condition: (a) If the petitioners fails to surrender before the

concerned 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 petitioners shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of three weeks 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on 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 accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.

(f)The petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation and provide sample signatures whenever required for investigation. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 26-09-2025 mpa Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes To

1. The Judicial Magistrate-II, Ponneri.

2.State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch Police Station, Avadi, Thiruvallur District. Crime No. 72 of

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

K.RAJASEKAR J.

mpa CRL OP No. 17919 and 18008 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.Nos.14755 and 14846 of 2025 26-09-2025