Radha v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, District Crime Branch,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 02.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 9434 of 2026 Radha ... Petitioner Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Tiruchirappalli District.
(Crime No.26 of 2021)
...Respondents/Complainant
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramakrishnan Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 26 of 2021 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 Section 420 of IPC in Crime No.26 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 1/6
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complaint purchased the property from the first accused and his wife in the name of his children. Thereafter, when the defacto complainant approached the Revenue Officials to transfer their in the revenue records, he came to know that the above said property was in the name of another person and not in the name of the first accused or his wife. Thereby the accused persons cheated the defacto complainant. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and she was falsely implicated in this case and she is no way connected in the above said incident. She has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. This petitioner is only document writer. Based on the confession statement of the co-accused, the petitioner was arrayed as accused in this case. Hence, he prays to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submits that the offences are grave in nature. The accused persons have cheated the defacto complainant as if they are the owner of the properties, created forged documents and sold the properties to the defacto complainant, which belongs to 2/6
the third party. The petitioner is the document writer. However, she has two previous cases. He vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioner, the petitioner was arrayed only based on the confession statement of the co-accused, co-accused was arrested and released on bail, even according to the prosecution, this petitioner is acted as document writer, though the petitioner has two previous cases, in all those cases she was granted anticipatory bail, even according to the prosecution, the occurrence took place in the year 2019, the FIR has been registered in the year 2021, by this time, investigation might to have been completed, 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 bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Trichy, on condition that the 3/6
petitioner shall 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 Magistrate concerned and on further condition 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) 02.06.2026 TM To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Trichy.
2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Tiruchirappalli District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6
P. DHANABAL, J.
TM
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No. 9434 of 2026 Date : 02.06.2026 6/6