V.V.Thanigaivelu v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 24-04-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN CRL OP No. 27718 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.19537 of 2025

1. V.V.Thanigaivelu 2.G.Ethiraj 3.G.Jai Shankar Petitioners Vs The Inspector of Police, Banavaram Police Station, Banavaram, Ranipet District.

(Crime.No. 263/ 2025) Respondent PRAYER The Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, prayed to enlarge the Petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No. 263 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent.

For Petitioners:

Mr.S.Shunmuga Velayutham, Senior Counsel for Mr.K.G.Senthil Kumar For Respondent:

Mr.P.Dhileepan, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For Intervenor:

Mr.Y.Kaja Nivas

ORDER

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of I.P.C., in Crime No.263 of 2025, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would submit that originally the land belongs to Loganathan / intervenor, who is the son of Swaminathan. The said Swaminathan has executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of the petitioners and pursuant to thereof, they had developed a layout in the said land and has sold it to various persons. In the meanwhile, Swaminathan died on 24.08.2002. However, without knowing such facts, the petitioners have acted upon on the basis of the invalid power of attorney.

3. The learned counsel for the Intervenor would submit that knowing very well about the death of Swaminathan, the petitioners have executed sale deeds in favour of third parties and thereby they have cheated the de fact complainant.

4. At this juncture, both the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the Intervenor would submit the matter was already referred to mediation and during mediation proceedings, the intervenor received a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- and remaining amount of

Rs.15,00,000/- is yet to be paid. Apart from that, 26 plots have to be transferred in favour of the intervenor and in this connection, they will work out the mediation proceedings which is pending before the Mediation Centre.

5. In view of subsequent developments, instead of keeping the matter pending, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on Anticipatory bail subject to the following conditions along with regular conditions: a) Both the parties are directed to cooperate the Mediation proceedings and the Mediation Centre shall complete the Mediation proceedings as early as possible, preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

b) The petitioners as agreed, are directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- to the de facto complainant / intervenor within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

c) As agreed, the petitioners are also directed to execute the sale deeds in respect of subject mentioned 26 plots in favour of the intervenor, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. d) If any of the condition is not complied with, the Intervenor / de facto complainant is at liberty to move an appropriate application for cancellation of bail.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is ordered. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sholingur, Ranipet District, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties 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, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that: [a] the petitioners and 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 Inspector of Police, Banavaram Police Station, Banavaram, Ranipet District, 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 and the condition mentioned in Para 5 supra, 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];

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

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 24-04-2026 vum Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order To 1.The Inspector of Police, Banavaram Police Station, Banavaram, Ranipet District.

2. The Judicial Magistrate, Sholingur, Ranipet District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

C.KUMARAPPAN J.

vum CRL OP No. 27718 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.19537 of 2025 24-04-2026