Shanmugam v. State Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL OP Nos.35972 and 35745 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.Nos.370 and 355 of 2026 Crl.O.P.No.35972 of 2025:
Shanmugam S/o.Sundaresan ... Petitioner / Accused Vs The State Rep. By, Central Crime Branch-II, Anti Land Grabbing Unit-II, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.
(Crime No.98 of 2025) ... Respondent/ Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, pleased to enlarge the petitioner herein on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest by the respondent in Crime No.98 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioner : Mr. R.C.Paul Kanagaraj for Mr.M.Rajavelu For Intervenor : Mr.R.Muralidharan For Respondent : M/s. J.R. Archana Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ****** Crl.O.P.No.35745 of 2025:
1.Rameshkannan S/o.N.Rajendran 2.Natrajan S/o.Sabapathy ... Petitioners / Accused Vs 1/8
The State Rep. By, The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch-II, Chennai.
(Crime No.98 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.98 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioners : Mr.B.Vijay for RA.Parkavi For Intervenor : Mr.R.Muralidharan For Respondent : M/s. J.R. Archana Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ****** C O M M O N
O R D E R
The petitioners herein, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of IPC in Crime No.98 of 2025 on the file of the respondent Police, seek anticipatory bail.
2.
The case of the prosecution is that, the petitioners are Sub Registrar and other government servants working in the office of the Sub Registrar, Neelankarai. It is alleged that one C.A.Natarajan has fabricated certain documents and claimed compensation for the Land acquisition done by the State Highways 2/8
Department for the widening work of East Coast Road. On the basis of the forged documents, he has also received some compensation, suppressing the fact that the land originally belongs to M/s. The R.M.C. Traders. Simultaneously, he has also approached the authorities for private negotiation with regard to the payment of the compensation for the land measuring 1500 sq.mts situated in S.No.88/3 and executed a sale deed dated 06.02.2024 and based on the private negotiation it was decided that the Highways Department has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.16.18 Crores and in this regard separately sale deed was also executed between the parties and the same was registered before the petitioner's office.
It is further alleged that this execution of sale deed was done based on the certain power of attorney and other documents and it is alleged that without verification of parent document and other documents, the SRO allowed the registration of the sale deed, thereby, the rights of the original owner namely M/s.RMC Traders has been deprived by way of cheating and their land was sold by first accused; Hence, this case. 3.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are the Sub-Registrar and staff in the office of Sub Registrar, Neelankarai; according to the petitioners, certain documents were presented before them for the registration by the officer of Highways Department and the sale deed is also in the nature of the private sale by way of private negotiation and the sale was for the purpose of acquiring the land for the State Highways before the 3/8
Registrar; it is also stated that the presentation of the documents is itself is made by the superior officials of the Highways Department; hence considering the above facts, registration has been executed by the Registrar and apart from that the petitioners have not involved in any of the offence as alleged in the complaint; and that the petitioners are 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 petitioners.
4.
The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor while opposing the anticipatory bail to the petitioners submitted that there are certain verification has to be made by the Registrar before registration of documents more particularly, parent documents and other related documents, but, no such verification has been done in this case and found that only after registration of FIR they have verified the documents with the concerned SRO, this itself shows that the petitioners have also actively participated and colluded with the first accused in this case and he further submitted that the total amount involved in this case is Rs.42 Crores and so far, no amount was recovered, the investigation is still pending. 5.
The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police while opposing the anticipatory bail to the petitioners reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the first accused was arrested on 4/8
02.12.2025 and the statement recorded from him revealed that he has paid Rs.25 lakhs to the petitioners herein separately and so far no money is recovered from him and that the investigation of this case is pending. 6.
I have gone through the FIR and other records, it reveals that though there are certain allegations made regarding collusion with the first accused for the purpose of registration of documents, considering the background of the case, it reveals that the allegations levelled against the petitioners herein are born out of records and further the petitioners are the government servants working in the registration department and according to them, oral verification has been carried out and further it is contemplated that the documents were presented by the officials of the Highways Department and the lands were acquired for the widening of the road; Considering the submissions made, facts and circumstances of this case, nature of allegation and the above facts, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary for the purpose of investigation, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. 7.
Accordingly, the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.35972 of 2025 is 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 made ready, before the learned Special Court for Central Crime Branch Cases, Metropolitan 5/8
Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.35745 of 2025 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 made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sholinganallur, on condition that the petitioners 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 that:
[a] if the petitioners fail to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of 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 evening at 7.00.p.m., for a period of three weeks and 6/8
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 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)13 SCC 283]; [e] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.
8.Accordingly, these Crl.O.Ps are ordered and connected Crl.M.Ps. are ordered.
30.01.2026 ssa To
1. The Special Court for Central Crime Branch Cases, Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai.
2. The Judicial Magistrate, Sholinganallur.
3. The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch -II, Anti Land Grabbing Unit -II, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.
(Crime No.98 of 2025)
4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
7/8
K. RAJASEKAR, J.
ssa CRL OP Nos.35972 and 35745 of 2025 30.01.2026 8/8