Sumathi v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Ccb
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 22/04/2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Sumathi ... Petitioner/Accused No.1 Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch Unit-1, Madurai City.
Crime No.54 of 2025. ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime no.54 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police.
For Petitioner : J.Mohamed Ibrahim, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan, Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to 1/6
judicial custody on 20.03.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 322, 324, 318, 335, 336(3) and 351 of BNS, in Crime No.54 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks 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 the petitioner. Based on that, the petitioner 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in favour of A2 without the knowledge of the defacto complainant and A3 & A4 stood as witness and Rs.40 lakhs has been withdrawn by the petitioner from the account of the defacto complainant. Hence, a case has been registered against the accused for the aforesaid offences. Hence, this case.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and she was falsely implicated in this case and she has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the occurrence was took place in the year 2021 but FIR was registered in the year 2025 and she has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 20.03.2026. Therefore, prayed to grant 2/6
bail for the petitioner.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the defacto complainant is aged about 76 years and the petitioner is the maid of the defacto complainant. On believing the petitioner, the defacto complainant executed a power deed in favour of her with respect to 1 1⁄2 acres. But, the petitioner executed a sale deed in favour of A2 without the knowledge of the defacto complainant. A3 and A4 stood as witness to the document. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner. He would further submit that the co-accused (A2, A3 & A4) were already granted bail and anticipatory bail by this Court.
5. This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, nature of offence, and there is a civil dispute between the 3/6
parties and the alleged occurrence was took place in the year 2021 and FIR was registered in the year 2025 and already the co-accused were released on bail and anticipatory bail by this court and considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on 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 Court No.I, Madurai, and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m for a period of 30 days and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation; [c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he/she is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which he/she is suspected;
[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;
4/6
[e] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;
[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 be registered under Section 269 BNS.
(P D B J) 22.04.2026 dss P. DHANABAL,J DSS 5/6
To 1.The Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Madurai. 2.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch Unit-1, Madurai City.
3. The Superintendent, Special Prison for Women, Madurai.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.7920 of 2026 Date : 22/04/2026 6/6