K. Senthil Kumar v. State Represented By Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12-09-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI K. Senthil Kumar Petitioner(s) Vs State Represented by Inspector of Police District Crime Branch, Salem District, Crime No. 9 of 2025.

Respondent(s) PRAYER Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C / Section 482 of BNSS Act, to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event ofarrest in Crime No. 9 of 2025 on the file of Inspector of police, District Crime Branch, Salem District.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.Karl Marx K C For Respondent(s):

Mr.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 120(b), 465, 468, 471 of IPC and Section 82(a) of Registration Act, 1908, in Crime No.9 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that based on a complaint lodged by Govindan, son of Periyaperumal, with the respondent police, alleging that his brother, Kandasamy, executed a settlement deed vide Document No.183/2022 before the Sub-Registrar, Magudanchavadi, in favour of his sons, pertaining to join family property standing in the name of their mother, to an extent of 13.75 cents situated in Old Survey No.279/3 and New Survey No.873/5, Edanganasalai Village, Sankari Taluk, Salem District by making forged documents.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the registered document writer and that the 1 st accused has

approached him to execute a settlement deed and the above deed is drafted as per the instructions of the 1 st accused. He would further submit that the allegations against the petitioner is entirely false and that the petitioner/A7 is no way connected with the alleged offence and that he is falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent police raised objections; however, upon consideration of the facts, it is noted that subsequent to the registration of the FIR, the alleged settlement deed (Document No.183/2022) was cancelled on 24.01.2023 by the District Registrar. Following due enquiry, the disputed settlement deed stands cancelled as of date. Furthermore, the Sub-Registrar has also been granted bail by this Court. He would further submit that the investigation is almost completed.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.

6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and that the coaccused has already been granted bail and the fact that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

(a) Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his/her appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate-6, Salem on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the said Magistrate, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent on every Tuesday at 10:30 a.m., for a period of six weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

[c] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during

investigation or trial;

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner 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 vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.

12-09-2025 gbi Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Note : 1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court. 2. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.

To 1.State Represented by Inspector of Police District Crime Branch, Salem District, Crime No. 9 of 2025.

2.The Judicial Magistrate-6, Salem.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

T.V.THAMILSELVI J.

gbi CRL OP No. 24452 of 12-09-2025