Santhi v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 25.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 12290 of 2026 Santhi

...Petitioner

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Vachakarapatti Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

(Crime No.130 of 2025)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Yogeswaran Advocate For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 130 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 30.05.2026, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 & 471 of IPC, in Crime No.130 of 2025 on the file of the respondent 1/6

police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the first accused had obtained a power of attorney by producing a forged legal heir certificate pertaining to the defacto complainant's grandmother and executed a power deed in favour of the 2nd accused. The second accused in turn executed a sale deed in favour of the third accused. Hence, there is criminal conspiracy between the accused persons. Therefore, the accused persons cheated the defacto complainant by treating the property of defacto complainant's grandmother unlawfully. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner is ready to cancellation of all documents executed subject to the orders of the competent authorities. Hence, he prayed bail for the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (crl. Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the offence are grave in nature. The petitioner along with other accused persons by creating the documents cheated the defacto complainant's grandmother's property. Co-accused has been granted 2/6

anticipatory bail. The petitioner has no previous case. Investigation is still pending. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

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, considering the nature of charges levelled against the petitioner, the there is property dispute between the parties, already co-accused was released on anticipatory bail by this Court the petitioner has no previous case 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 No.I, Virudhunagar, 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: 3/6

[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;

[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 51730]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS.

(P D B J) 25.06.2026 TM 4/6

To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhunagar. 2.The Inspector of Police, Vachakarapatti Police Station, Virudhunagar District. (Crime No.130 of 2025) 3.The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Paramakudi (Women) 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

P. DHANABAL, J.

TM

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 12290 of 2026 Date : 25.06.2026 6/6