Sunilkumar v. The Station House Officer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18-12-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
1. Sunilkumar S/o.Anandaraj, No.46, Muliai Street, Bharathi Nagar, Arivankuppam Puducherry- 605007 Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The Station House Officer CBCID Police Station, Puducherry, Cr.
No.6 of 2024 Respondent(s) PRAYER To enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest by the respondent Police in Crime No. 6/2024 on the file of the Respondent police. For Petitioner(s):
Viswanathan Sb For Respondent(s):
Mr.M.V.Ramachandra Murthy Public Prosecutor(Puducherry)
ORDER
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 419, 268, 420 r/w. 34 of IPC in Crime No.6 of 2024, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner joined hands
with the other accused, involved in grabbing of the land belonging one Priya @ Patchaiyammal, by impersonation and executed a sale deed. It is further alleged that this execution of sale deed has taken place with the collusion of the then Sub-Registrar of the concerned jurisdiction in the Registration Department.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser and he was not aware of the fabrication of records or impersonation committed by the other accused. He purchased the property from one Gayatri and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Already there was a civil suit is pending in this regard. Hence, he prays for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor (Puducherry), submitted that the petitioner was aware of the impersonation, and other fabrication of records by A1 to A3., and initially after knowing the nature of the property, he obtained unregistered mortgage and thereafter, the property was sold in favour of one Gayatri, and from whom he purchased the property. He also actively participated in various offences. He further submitted that, in the meantime, one another person claiming himself as legal heir of the deceased Priya has attempted to obtain a legal-heir certificate. With the help of other accused, various documents were executed and properties were also dealt with. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail.
5. I have gone through the records, and other connected materials. The petitioner obtained the sale deed in his name from one Priya and he has also filed an affidavit stating he is ready to cancel the sale deed executed in his favour. Though he approached the Registration Department for the said cancellation, the Sub Registrar refused to cancel the document. He also filed an affidavit before the concerned court to that effect and the same is placed on record. It is also stated that except A9, A14 and the petitioner, all other accused were arrested and granted bail by the court and the accused A9 and A14 were also granted anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the fact that co-accused were arrested and released, that for other accused anticipatory bail was granted and that the petitioner is also reports that he is ready to cancel the document, and the occurrence has taken place in the year 2022, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.
7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only), with two
sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further condition:
(a) If the petitioners fails to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) 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 identify proofs to ensure their identity;
(c) The petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation; (d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions 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 v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560];
(e) If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.
18-12-2025 Mpa Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes To
1. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry. 2.The Station House Officer CBCID Police Station, Puducherry, Cr.
No.6 of 2024 3.The Public Prosecutor(Puducherry) High Court of Madras.
K.RAJASEKAR J.
mpa CRL OP No. 34140 of 18-12-2025