Chidambari v. State Of Tamilnadu, Rep By, The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17-10-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
1. CHIDAMBARI
2. SORNAVEL
3. PRIYA
4. PRABHAKARAN Petitioners Vs State of Tamilnadu, Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Vadavalli Police Station, Coimbatore District. in Crime No. 259/2025.
Respondent(s) PRAYER The Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of BNSS, to enlarge the petitioners on Anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 259 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent, on file of the respondent, on file of the respondent, Vadavalli Police Station, Coimbatore District.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.Rajasekar M For Respondent(s):
Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Crl.side)
ORDER
The petitioners, who apprehend arrest by the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120(b) of IPC, in Crime No.259 of 2025, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The allegation against these petitioners is that the defacto complainant's father was severely ill, and required money for his treatment. He approached the petitioners to arrange a mortgage loan, and the petitioners agreed to do so, after collecting documents from them. Under the pretext of arranging the loan, these petitioners took the defacto complainant's father to the Registrar's office and obtained a sale deed and a mortgage deed for Rs.25,50,000/- and Rs.38,00,000/-respectively. The lands were subsequently dealt with by the petitioners. The defacto complainant's family attempted to cancel the transactions, but the petitioners gave evasive reasons, thereby allegedly grabbed the land.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the alleged incidents occurred in the year 2019, and the defacto complainant and his family were aware of the transactions. A false complaint was lodged despite their knowledge, and several proceedings had already been initiated by banks for loan recovery and prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondent reported that the petitioners cheated the defacto complainant to the extent of Rs.1,70,00,000/- by mortgaging his properties and investigation is pending, and there are allegations of fabrication of records and impersonation. 5.I have perused the FIR, which reveals disturbing facts about the manner in which the defacto complainant and his family were cheated. The transactions occurred in the year 2019, and the defacto complainant's family was aware about them at that time, and yet no complaint was filed until 2025, with no explanation given in the complaint. Considering that the allegations are borne out by records, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary. Hence, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to certain conditions.
6.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.6, Coimbatore on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only), each 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 learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that: (a) the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb
impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;
(b) the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 am, for a period of three weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation; (c) the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;
(d) the petitioners 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the 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) AIR SCW 5560]; and;
(f) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.
17-10-2025 gbi
To 1.State of Tamilnadu, Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Vadavalli Police Station, Coimbatore District. in Crime No. 259/2025.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.6, Coimbatore.
3.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.
K.RAJASEKAR J.
gbi CRL OP No. 24916 of 17-10-2025