Chinnapappa v. State By, Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 19-01-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

1. Chinnapappa

2. Amudha

3. Kuppan

4. Munusamy @ Munisamy ..Petitioner(s) Vs State by, Inspector of Police, Ranipet Police Station, Ranipet District.

Crime No. 511 of 2025.

..Respondent(s) Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS Act, pleased to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of arrest by the respondent police in Crime. No.511 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.D.Thirumoorthy For Respondent(s):

M/s.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

ORDER

The petitioners herein apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 of I.P.C. in Crime No.511 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that these petitioners are the one of the joint patta holders of the property situated in S.Nos.460/1, 460/2 and __________Page 1 of 4

461/2. A portion of the land was purchased by the defacto-complainant in this case from some of the patta holders and he was in possession of some portions. In the meantime, some of the other patta holders who are not having any valid title over the lands and without properly demarcating, sold the properties to the third parties thereby created so many encumbrances over the lands in possession of the defacto-complainant. Hence, the case has been registered. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the alleged transaction had taken place as early as in the year 2023 and the complaint was lodged only recently stating that there was a mis-description of the properties in the sale deed executed. All these transactions took place several years ago and the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary for investigating a case of this nature. He further submitted that all the transactions have turned out of records. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the defacto-complainant has alleged that there was some portion of land to the extent of 12.5 acres have been encroached by the accused herein by falsely claiming title to the property. Hence, this case is registered and First Information Report is pending. __________Page 2 of 4

5.I have also gone through the First Information Report and it revealed that there was an allegation that the petitioners herein have fabricated some sale deeds without having title to the lands to the extent of 12.5 acres. Since, all the transactions have borne out of records, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary for investigating the case of this nature and hence I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions:

6. Accordingly, 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 of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranipet, on condition that each of the petitioners shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) each 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 fails to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within a period of fifteen 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 the identity proofs to ensure their identity; __________Page 3 of 4

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

[c] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30.a.m., for a period of three weeks and 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 petitioners 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 absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.

19-01-2026 ep To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Ranipet.

2.The Inspector of Police, Ranipet Police Station, Ranipet District.

3.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

__________Page 4 of 4