K. Rajendran v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Jeyamangalam
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 19/06/2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL K. Rajendran ... Petitioner/Accused No.1 Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Jeyamangalam Police Station, Theni District.
Crime No. 86 of 2026. ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. 86 of 2026 on the file of the respondent Police.
For Petitioner : R. Shankar Ganesh, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian, Counsel For State of TN (Crl.Side) ORDER : The Court made the following order :- 1/6
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(3), 340(1) and 340(2) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.86 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the Manager and one Jeganathan is the Managing Director of the VHF SELVE Farm. The said Jeganathan purchased the land in S.No.576/2A (Old.S.No.576/2). Thereafter, he divided the same as plots and sold the some of the plots to the third parties. In such circumstances, after his demise in the year 2007, the son of the Jeganathan obtained Encumbrance Certificate with respect to the said land and came to know that the petitioner colluded with another accused, executed a lease deed for a period of 15 years by creating the forged document with respect to the above said property. Based on that, he also entered into an agreement with the government and got permission for doing mines business in that property. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he 2/6
has no way connected in the above said incident. He would further submit that the petitioner herein is none other than the brother-in-law of the said Jeganathan and the alleged lease deed was already cancelled and no previous case is pending against the petitioner. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the offence committed by the accused is grave in nature and the investigation is still pending. Hence, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. He would further submit that the alleged lease deed was already cancelled and no previous case is pending against 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, and there is a property dispute between the parties with respect to execution of lease deed and the alleged lease deed was already cancelled and no previous case is pending against the petitioner, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the 3/6
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, Periyakulam, on condition that the 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 Judicial Magistrate concerned and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police, every Saturday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of 4 weeks, and thereafter as 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 4/6
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 B.N.S.
19.06.2026 dss To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam.
2.The Inspector of Police, Jeyamangalam Police Station, Theni District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6
P. DHANABAL,J DSS
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.11625 of 2026 Date : 19/06/2026 6/6