L.Jegadeesan, v. The State Rep. By Its, The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12-02-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
1. L.Jegadeesan,
2. L.Jothi ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep. by its, The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Tambaram City Police, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119.
..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the Petitioners on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 23 of 2025, On the file of Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Tambaram City Police, Chennai-119. For Petitioner(s):
For Intervenor Mr.Arun Dhanapalan Mr.J.N.Nandagopal For Respondent(s):
Ms.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 120b, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 473, of IPC in Crime No.23 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners are ranked as A3 and A4. The first accused had alleged to have fabricated and forged the power of attorney in respect of 15 cents of immovable property belongs to Nandhagopal, Saraswathi of Singapore, situated at Palanthandalam Village, Sri Perumpudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District on 08.08.2006, and based on the said power of attorney, alienations were made in favour of the petitioners on 09.08.2006 by a document No.4589/2006 registered at Sub Registrar Office, Padappai. The petitioners are arrayed as A3 and A4 on the ground that they purchased the said property from A1 during the year 2006. Hence the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case and they are ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that A1 to A4 have involved in fabrication of the power of attorney in respect of 15 cents of immovable property and based on the power of attorney, sale deeds and other documents were also executed. Hence, he opposed for grant of bail to the petitioners.
5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the fact that the alleged transaction entered by the petitioners herein took place in the year 2006 and A3 purchased the land from A2 in the year 2007, settlement deed executed in favour of A4 in the year 2013, and also considering overtact attributed against them, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary in this case, hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.
7. Accordingly, the petitioners is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Kancheepuram District, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that: (a) If the petitioners fails to surrender before the concerned Magistrate, within a period of fifteen 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 the identity proofs to ensure their identity; [c] the petitioners shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 am for a period of four weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation; [d] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned 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)13 SCC 283]; [e] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.
12-02-2026 GBI 1/2 To 1.The State Rep. by its, The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Tambaram City Police, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kanchipuram District. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
K.RAJASEKAR, J.
GBI 12-02-2026