A.Chellamuthu v. State By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 25-11-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL OP NO.32050 of 2025 A. Chellamuthu ... Petitioner/ Accused Vs The State Rep. By, The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch Police Station (CCB), Commissioner Office, Avadi City, (Crime No. Not Known of 2025) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest by the respondent in Crime No.Not Known of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr. Pugalenthi Pandian For Intervenor : M/s. Kirubalani For Respondent : Mr. S. Udayakumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ****** 1/6

O R D E R

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC in Crime No.106 of 2025 on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.

The allegation against this petitioner is that, the petitioner joined hands with other accused namely Immanuel and Prabhakaran created a bogus Power of Attorney, by way of impersonation; that on the strength of the said Power of Attorney deed, the accused alleged to have sold the property to the defacto complainant, in which the petitioner herein is cited as one of the witnesses; that further the petitioner and co-accused also sold the same property to various other persons. Hence, this case. 3.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution; that the petitioner herein was not aware about the fabrication of documents prior to execution of the sale deed; and that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions 2/6

that may be imposed by this Court, hence sought for anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.

The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor raised strong objection for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by stating that, the petitioner joined hands with other accused by means of fabrication of records and impersonation, sold a property to the defacto complainant. He also submitted that the petitioner and other accused had involved in similar offences of cheating.

5.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent while opposing the anticipatory bail to the petitioner reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that there are totally three accused involved in this case and the petitioner is arrayed as A3; that the accused taking advantage of the death of one Inbaraj, fabricated the documents, executed a Power of Attorney by way of impersonating the owner of property, i.e., Inbaraj, sold the property to the defacto complainant and to various other persons, thereby cheated the defacto complainant, that the investigation of this case is pending.

3/6

6.

Considering the submissions made on both sides and perused the materials available on record.

7.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, gravity of offence, the petitioner and other accused had actively participated in fabrication of records with an intention to grab the property and sold the same to the defacto complainant and taking note of the fact that the investigation of the case is pending, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

8.

Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. 25.11.2025 stn 4/6

To

1. The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch Police Station (CCB), Commissioner Office, Avadi City, (Crime No.106 of 2025)

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

5/6

K. RAJASEKAR, J.

stn Crl.O.P. No.32050 of 2025 25.11.2025 6/6