Vishnu v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Dcb
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 25/03/2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Vishnu, S/o. Mr.Gunasekaran, ... Petitioner/Accused Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Tirunelveli District.
Crime No. 09 of 2026..
... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.S.Suresh Manickam For Respondent : Mr.P.Kottai Chamy, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.Jega Mohan PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. 9 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent police.
1/6
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 471 and 109 of IPC (Corresponding Provision is under Section 336(2), 338, 340(2), 49 of BNS, 2023), in Crime No.9 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, along with the other accused persons, colluded with the intention of grabbing the defacto complainant's land and fraudulently created forged sale deeds. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he is no way connected in the above said incident. He has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and also submitted that the petitioner is not a named accused in the FIR. Hence, he prays to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner.
2/6
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) fairly submits that the petitioner is the subsequent purchaser of the property and he has no previous case. However, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. Mr.Jeyamohan, learned counsel seeks an adjournment on the ground that he is going to file an intervening application on behalf of the defacto complainant and he has also stated that he has no objection to allow the petition if the petitioner is ready to cancel the sale deed.
6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
7. Considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioner, and considering the facts that the petitioner has no previous case and the petitioner is the subsequent purchaser of the property and the petitioner is not a named accused in the FIR, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:
3/6
[a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of four weeks and thereafter, and when required for the interrogation.
[c] the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature.
[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
[e] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner 4/6
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)AIR SCW 5560].
[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.
(P D B J) 25.03.2026 tta TO 1.Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Tirunelveli District.
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6
P. DHANABAL,J tta
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.5907 of 2026 Date : 25/03/2026 6/6