Abdul Rehman @ Abdul Kadhar v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Ccb

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 22.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 7932 of 2026 Abdul Rehman @ Abdul Kadhar ... Petitioner Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, CCB, Madurai City, Madurai District.

(Crime No.44 of 2025)

...Respondents/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Saravanan Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.M.Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl. side) For Intervenor : Mr.Ramesiva Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 44 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

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, 468, 471 and 474 of IPC, in 1/6

Crime No.44 of 2025, 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 created forged documents and transferred the property belonged to the defacto complainant in their names. 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. He is only the land broker. The petitioner has no role in other transactions. Hence, he prays to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) fairly submits that the offences are grave in nature. The petitioner along with other accused persons created forged documents by obtaining directions from the High Court by suppressing all facts and transferred the property in their names, despite of the order of District Revenue Officer, Madurai. Hence, he vehemently opposed the granting of bail to the petitioner. Investigation is still pending. The petitioner has no previous case.

2/6

5.The learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that already there is an order order of District Revenue Officer, Madurai, confirming that the property belongs to the defacto complainant. Despite the same the A1 filed a writ petition before this Court and obtained an order suppressing all the facts in this case and also transferred the patta in her name and on that basis transferred the property in the name of his son A3. Thereafter, he along with the other accused came to the property to sell the same to other persons. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory 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 of offences charged against the petitioner, there is dispute between the parties in respect of the land, even according to the prosecution the petitioner is acted as land broker, all the offences born out of the records, there in no scope of tampering the witnesses, the petitioner has no previous case and considering all other facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on 3/6

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 at 10.30 a.m., on every Saturday for a period of four weeks, thereafter as and when required for 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 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 4/6

registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

(P D B J) 22.04.2026 TM To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai.

2.The Inspector of Police, CCB, Madurai City, Madurai.

(Crime No.44 of 2025) 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

P. DHANABAL, J.

TM

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 7932 of 2026 Date : 22.04.2026 6/6