Maridurai @ Marimuthu, v. The State Of Tamil Nadu, Represented By Its

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 24.10.2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY CRL OP(MD)No.12323 of 2025 and CRL MP(MD)No.15348 of 2025

1. Maridurai @ Marimuthu

2. Ramesh

3. Balamurugan

4. Anbarasan ... Petitioners/A-2 to 5

Versus

The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, Woraiyur Police Station, Trichy District.

(Crime No.290 of 2025) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : Mr.C.Susikumar For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For Intervenor : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar 1/7

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.290 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/Accused, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 474 of IPC, in Crime No.290 of 2025, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that A1 created a forged non-traceable certificate with an intention to deceive the complainant and to conceal the missing document. By using the forged certificate, A1 entered into a sale agreement with the first petitioner on 28.04.2017, registered as Document No.1900 of 2017. Subsequently, A1 executed a power of attorney deed in favour of the second petitioner vide Document No.4073 of 2017 dated 06.09.2017. Thereafter, the second petitioner executed a sale deed in favour of the first petitioner on 28.10.2017, registered as Document No.5924 of 2017, while the remaining two 2/7

petitioners stood as attestors to the document. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent Police submits that A1 forged a non-traceable certificate to conceal a missing document and, using the same, executed several transactions with the petitioners, culminating in a sale deed dated 28.10.2017.

5. The transaction between the defacto complainant and A1 pertains to a power of attorney executed for consideration. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the value of the property is Rs.60,00,000/-, but the defacto complainant had paid only Rs.1,00,000/-. The petitioners are purchasers and witnesses to the entire transaction. After execution of the power of attorney, the owner sold the property to two purchasers and 3/7

later unilaterally cancelled it, and thereafter sold it to A2. Considering the fact that the petitioners are only purchasers and witnesses, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6. Accordingly, this Petition is allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Trichy, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent Police or to the Police Officer, who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further conditions that:

(a) the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

(b) the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m for a period of three days and thereafter, as and when required. They have to co-operate for 4/7

the investigation;

(c) the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; (d) the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

(e) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned 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 petitioners 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]; and;

(f) if the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS 2023.

7. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.

(S S Y J) 24.10.2025 jbr 5/7

To

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Trichy.

2. The Inspector of Police, Woraiyur Police Station, Trichy District.

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

6/7

S.SRIMATHY,J.

jbr

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.12323 of 2025 Date : 24.10.2025 7/7