Arun Kumar v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT (Criminal Jurisdiction) Dated : 22.10.2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY Arun Kumar ... Petitioner vs.
The State of Tamilnadu represented by, The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Thoothukudi District.
(Cr.No.Not known of 2025) ... Respondent PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.Not known of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioner :Mr.R.Anand For Respondent :Mrs.M.Aasha Government Advocate (Crl.side) For Intervenor :Mr.A.Arun Ramnath ***** 1/5
O R D E R
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 336(2), 336(3), 340(2), 318(4) and 61(2) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.Not known of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant is the owner of the property in S.Nos.581/2 and 582 situated in Katchapuram, Muthulur Village, Santhankulam Taluk. For the purpose of selling the same after plotting out into number of house sites, he had executed a general power of attorney deed in favour of the petitioner on 28.10.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner has fraudulently transferred the properties to various persons as if the same has been properly obtained from the de-facto complainant. Hence, the complaint. 3.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he is no way connected with the alleged occurrence as stated by the prosecution. After receiving the entire payment in full for the said property, in order to get more money and to 2/5
threaten the petitioner, the de-facto complainant has cancelled the said general power of attorney deed on 11.01.2024, unilaterally. The learned Counsel further submitted that the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation and he seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the respondent Police submitted that the de-facto complainant has met with an accident and therefore, he is not able to attend the enquiry. Hence, the respondent Police has closed the complaint as of now. The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) further submitted that the de-facto complainant has also preferred another complaint before the Inspector of General of Police and the same is pending. Further, the petitioner as well as the de-facto complainant have filed civil suits to protect their rights. 5.The learned Counsel for the intervenor submitted that the defacto complainant has also preferred another complaint before the Inspector General of Police and the same is pending and he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
3/5
6.Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the respondent Police has closed the complaint as of now, as the de-facto complainant has met with an accident and is not able to attend the enquiry and further, the de-facto complainant has also filed another complaint before the Inspector General of Police, and both the petitioner as well as the de-facto complainant have preferred civil suits to protect their rights, the present petition is closed with liberty to the de-facto complainant to pursue the complaint, which is pending before the Inspector General of Police and if needed, he is also at liberty to file fresh complaint before the respondent Police. 22.10.2025 cmr (2/2) To 1.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Thoothukudi District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4/5
S.SRIMATHY, J.
cmr 22.10.2025 (2/2) 5/5