T.Selvam v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Ccb Unit - I

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 09/04/2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL T.Selvam ... Petitioner/Accused No.2 Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch Unit - I, Madurai.

Crime No.54 of 2025. ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime no.54 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Anandhapadmanaban, Senior Counsel for Mr.Daniel Abishek T, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.P.Kottaichamy, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ORDER : The Court made the following order :- 1/8

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 322, 324, 318, 335, 336(3) and 351 of BNS, 2023 (equivalent to IPC Sections 423, 425, 415, 464, 468, 503) in Crime No.54 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.06.2024, the defacto complainant executed a general power of attorney in favour of A1. Based on that, A1 executed a sale deed in favour of A2 without the knowledge of the defacto complainant and A3 & A4 stood as witness and Rs.40 lakhs has been withdrawn by A1 from the account of the defacto complainant. Hence, a case has been registered against the accused for the aforesaid offences. Hence, this petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and has was falsely implicated in this case and he has no way connected in the above said incident. He would further submit that there is no proof for sale consideration and the petitioner has no previous case. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the 2/8

petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the defacto complainant is aged about 76 years and A1 is the maid of the defacto complainant. On believing A1, the defacto complainant executed a power deed in favour of A1 with respect to 1 1⁄2 acres. But, A1 executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner/A2 without the knowledge of the defacto complainant. A1 was arrested and still in custody. Apart from that, the petitioner is having 3 previous cases all are similar in nature (420 of IPC). Hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the Intervener would submit that initially complaint was lodged before the respondent police. The respondent police refused to registered the case, he lodged a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Madurai in Cr.MP.No.5397 of 2025 under Section 175(3) r/w 223 BNSS and as per direction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, present complaint has been registered against the accused persons. The defacto complainant already 3/8

filed a suit in O.S.No.120 of 2025 before the Principal District Court, Madurai, and the same was transferred to the V Additional District Court, Madurai, on 10.03.2025 and the same is pending. A1 is the care taker of the Complainant and she was paid a monthly salary of Rs.20,000/-. Due to the health issues in June 2024, he handed over all the keys and cheque books to A1 on confidence and she already obtained signature in the said cheques. Thereafter, she misused the same and withdrawn the amount of Rs.40 lakhs and executed the sale deed in faour of the petitioner/A2, who is a practicing advocate with an intention to cheat the complainant. Originally the property is worth about 1.50 crores. But the sale consideration is only Rs.40 lakhs and the same is very low. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

7. Considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature 4/8

of offences charged against the petitioner, and the petitioner is purchased the property based on the power deed executed infavour of A1 and even in the sale deed consideration has been mentioned, though the learned counsel for the defacto complainant stated that consideration is too low comparing the market value that cannot be considered by this Court and if any grievance, the petitioner shall approach the appropriate forum and already a suit in O.S.No.

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 learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police, daily at 10.30 a.m until further orders. [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 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 6/8

be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

01.04.2026 2/2 dss To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai.

2.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch Unit - I, Madurai.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

7/8

P. DHANABAL,J DSS

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.6678 of 2026 Date : 09/04/2026 2/2 8/8