Raja Rajane v. The State Rep. By The Station House Officer,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 27-10-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL OP NO.18489 of 2025 Raja Rajane ... Petitioner/ Intervenor Vs

1. State rep. by, The Station House Officer, Reddiyarpalayam Police Station, Puducherry.

(Crime No.122 of 2025)

2. Sekar ... Respondents PRAYER: This criminal original petition has been filed under Section 483(3) of BNSS Act 2023 to cancel the anticipatory bail granted by the Learned Principal Sessions Judge at Puducherry in Crl.M.P.No.700 of 2025 dated 09.06.2025 in connection with Crime No.122 of 2025. For Petitioner(s) : M/s. Prakash Adiapadam For R1 : Mr. K.S. Mohandass Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) For R2 : M/s. G. Jeremiah Gregory John ****** 1/4

ORDER

This criminal original petition has been filed by the defacto complainant/ petitioner, to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the second respondent herein by the Hon'ble Principal Sessions Judge at Puducherry in Crl.M.P.No.700 of 2025 dated 09.06.2025 in connection with Crime No.122 of 2025. 2.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ defacto complainant submitted that the second respondent herein is the prime accused in the case registered in Crime No.122 of 2025 for the offences under Section 418, 420, 468, 471, 467 of IPC r/w Section 34 of IPC. He further submitted that the second respondent herein/ A1 joined hands with other accused involved in fabrications of records, created bogus Power of Attorney deed dated 13.02.2003 and on the strength of the said Power of Attorney deed sold the property in favour of A2 and subsequently, A2 sold the property in favour of A3. He further submitted that since the offences are very serious in nature, hence custodial interrogation is very much necessary, hence prays to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the second respondent herein. 3.

The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that the second respondent is a senior citizen and the said Power of Attorney 2/4

deed was executed in the year 2003 and the present complaint was lodged in the year 2025 i.e., after lapse of 22 years, only to harass the second respondent and to meet out his ulterior motive; that the second respondent is regularly complying with the condition imposed on him while granting anticipatory bail, hence prayed to dismiss this petition.

4.

The learned Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) appearing for the first respondent submitted that the investigation was completed and final report also filed in this case; and that the subsequent sale deeds executed on the strength of the said Power of Attorney deed were set aside by the District Registrar. 5.

I have considered the submissions made on both sides and perused the materials available on record. On careful perusal of the order dated 09.06.2025 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, the learned Judge has recorded that the specific overtact alleged against the second respondent herein is that he created bogus Power of Attorney deed by fabrication of records and signature of the petitioner's mother and since the second respondent is aged about 70 years, custodial interrogation is not necessary. K. RAJASEKAR, J.

stn 3/4

6.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the allegations are borne out by records, the subsequent sale deeds executed on the strength of the alleged Power of Attorney deed were already set aside and taking note of the fact that investigation of the case was completed and final report filed, custodial interrogation is not necessary, hence I am of the view that there is no reasons made out for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the second respondent herein.

7.

Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. 27.10.2025 stn To

1. The Station House Officer, Reddiyarpalayam Police Station, Puducherry.

(Crime No.122 of 2025)

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. Crl.O.P. No.18489 of 2025 4/4