Seetharamu v. State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 11-12-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL OP NOS.33273 and 33329 of 2025 Seetharamu ... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.33273 of 2025/ A3 Vadivelu @ Vadivel ... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.33329 of 2025/ A2 Vs The State Rep. By, The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Krishnagiri District, Tamil nadu - 603 202.

(Crime No.22 of 2025) ... Respondent/ Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, pleased to enlarge the petitioners herein on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest by the respondent in Crime No.22 of 2025 on the file of the respondents police.

For Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.33273 of 2025 : Mr. S. Mohanraj For Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.33329 of 2025 : Mr. A. Velmurugan For Respondent : M/s. J.R. Archana Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ****** 1/6

O R D E R

The petitioners herein, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the first respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 419, 420, 506(ii) r/w 120(b) of IPC, 1860 in Crime No.22 of 2025 on the file of the respondents, seek anticipatory bail.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that, the petitioners herein colluded with other accused, impersonated the defacto complainant, executed bogus sale deeds and Power of Attorney for the defacto complainant's property situated at Poonapalli Village in Survey Nos.788/1 and 798 to the extent of 4.80 acres of land, in order to grab the same; that the accused obtained a Non traceable certificate from the Bangalore Malgaeswara Police Station for the parent document of the defacto complainant's property; that thereafter, A4/ C. Kumar is alleged to have impersonated the defacto complainant and executed a sale deed in favour of A1/ Narayanan and who in turn A1 executed a Power of Attorney in favour of A2/ Vadivelu @ Vadivel with the help of A3/ Seetharamu, who is a Sub-Registrar at Kolamangalam SRO, who had not verified the ownership nor the documents of the said property, registered the Power of Attorney Deed; that when the defacto complainant came to know about the same, he lodged a complaint before the respondent police and pursuant to the direction of the 2/6

learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Krishnagiri in Crl.M.P.No.1211 of 2025, FIR came to be registered.

3.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ A2 submitted that the petitioner/ Vadivelu @ Vadivel is a land mediator and he only acted as a Power Agent on the instruction of A1, and he was neither aware about the alleged impersonation nor the real owner of the land; that the petitioner is not a beneficiary in any of the transactions; and that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and to co-operate for the investigation, hence sought for anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ A3 submitted that the petitioner/ Seetharamu is a Sub-Registrar who served at SRO Kolamangalam only upto the year 2020 and he has not served in the year 2021, during which the Power of Attorney document was registered; that there was no objectionable records found for denying the said registration of Power of Attorney; and that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and to co-operate for the investigation, hence sought for anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the 3/6

respondent police while opposing the anticipatory bail to the petitioners reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the investigation of this case is pending and no one is arrested in this case so far. 6.

Considering the submissions made on both sides, facts and circumstances of the case, grave nature of offence, the manner in which the offence is said to have taken place and the fact that investigation of this case is pending, if the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, there is possibility of hampering the investigation process, hence this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

7.

Accordingly, these criminal original petitions stand dismissed. 11.12.2025 stn To 4/6

1. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Krishnagiri District, Tamil nadu - 603 202.

(Crime No.22 of 2025)

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

K. RAJASEKAR, J.

5/6

stn CRL OP NOS.33273 and 33329 of 2025 11.12.2025 6/6