V.P. Selvam v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 24.11.2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY 1.V.P.Selvam 2.Selvi . ..Petitioners/ Accused Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep by the Inspector of Police, Kottampatti Police Station, Madurai District.

(Crime No.197 of 2025 ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : Mr.M.Thilagar Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.197 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

1/5

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners / Accused who apprehends arrest in the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471, 294(b), 506(1) of IPC, in Crime No.197 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail,

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners had created the forged documents and grabbed the lands belonging to the defacto complainant and cheated him. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the 1st petitioner is the power of attorney of the defacto complainant. He further submitted that based on the said power of attorney, the 1st petitioner had sold the lands to the 2nd petitioner. He further submitted that the 1st petitioner is the brother-in-law of the defacto complainant, due to family dispute, a false case has been given. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this 2/5

Court. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that the petitioners have involved in very serious offence and the investigation is still pending. Hence, he objected to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. The learned counsel for the intervenor/defacto complainant submitted that the petitioners had cheated the defacto complainant. Hence, he strongly opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the petitioners have involved in very serious offence and the investigation is at initial stage. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

7.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. (S S Y J) 24.11.2025 msrm 3/5

To 1.The learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur.

2.The Inspector of Police, Kottampatti Police Station, Madurai District.

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

4/5

S.SRIMATHY,J msrm

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.14797 of 2025 24.11.2025 (1/2) 5/5