S.Chandru v. The State Represented By Its , Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09-09-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

1. S.Chandru S/o. Sampantham, 8/51, Kavimani Nagar, 3rd Street, Koilambakkam, Kancheepuram-600 117 Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The State Represented by its , Inspector of Police, LFIW -II, Gamma -6, Veppery, Chennai - 600007. (Crime No. 91/2025) Respondent(s) PRAYER: To enlarge the petitioner on bail in the Crime No. 91/2025 on the file of the Respondent .

For Petitioner(s):

M/s.Vindhiya For Respondent(s):

Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 07.07.2025 for the alleged offences under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 109, 120(B) of Indian Penal Code, in Crime No.91 of 2025, on the file of respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, as if he had colluded with the other accused, fabricated documents, impersonated, and created a sale deed which was subsequently mortgaged to a third party for wrongful gain. He further submitted that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser, who purchased the property without knowledge of any impersonation. He further submitted that the petitioner has been suffering incarceration from 07.07.2025. Hence, he seeks the grant of bail to the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the intervenor raised objections, stating that the petitioner, in collusion with A1, impersonated and created a fraudulent sale deed in respect of the property, which is a vacant site belonging to the defacto complainant. It was further submitted that the said property was thereafter

mortgaged, and the petitioner sold the property to one Thirumaran, receiving a sum of Rs.65 lakhs into his account, with whom the mortgage was also created.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the petitioner along with other accused impersonated and created a fraudulent sale deed in respect of the property belongs to the defacto complainant. At present, an encumbrance has also been created over the property. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the gravity of the offence, an encumbrance has also been created over the property. If the petitioner is released on bail, he may abscond, tamper with the evidence, and hamper the witnesses. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 09-09-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes rri

To 1.The State Represented by its , Inspector of Police, LFIW -II, Gamma -6, Veppery, Chennai - 600007. (Crime No. 91/2025) 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

T.V.THAMILSELVI J.

rri CRL OP No. 24563 of 09-09-2025