Sankaralingam v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By The Inspector Of Police, Dcb

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 25.11.2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY CRL OP(MD)No.11706 of 2025 Sankaralingam ... Petitioner/ Accused No. 2 Vs The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Thoothukud District.

(Crime No.21 of 2025) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.S.Jeyakarthik For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj Government Advocate (Crl. side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.21 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

1/5

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/Accused, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2) and 318(4) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.21 of 2025, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant's husband was working in Mauritius. The first accused obtained a life certificate from the third accused, who is a doctor, by creating a false record stating that the defacto complainant's husband had appeared before the third accused on 17.03.2025. Using the said life certificate, the first accused sold the lands to the second accused. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

2/5

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent Police submitted that the first accused, with the help of the third accused, fabricated a life certificate showing the defacto complainant's husband as present on 17.03.2025, and using it, sold the lands to the second accused. Therefore, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. This Court had directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.25,00,000/-, but he expressed his inability to do so. The allegation against the petitioner is that, being the power of attorney of the defacto complainant, he executed the sale deed without giving the sale consideration, and that a life certificate was fraudulently obtained. Considering the above facts and also considering the nature of allegation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. (S S Y J) 25.11.2025 jbr 3/5

To

1. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Thoothukud District.

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

4/5

S.SRIMATHY,J.

jbr

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.11706 of 2025 Date : 25.11.2025 5/5