Rajkumar v. The State Of Tamilnadu, Rep. By The Inspector Of Police,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 23.02.2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY CRL OP(MD)No.14726 of 2025 Rajkumar ... Petitioner Vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Seithur Rural Police Station, Virudhunagar District.
(Crime No.116 of 2025) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr.J.Karthikeyan For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.S.Ramasamy PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.116 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.
1/6
ORDER: The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC, in Crime No.116 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that one Marudhupandiyan had purchased a land property comprised in Survey No:380/8 to an extent of 1 acre and 84 cents in Sundararajapuram village, Virudhunagar District. Subsequently, he applied for mutation of patta and the same was rejected by the revenue authorities stating that the above land was allotted to Adi Dravidar by the Government and no resale can done within 10 years. Further, he came to know that on 28.11.2001 the above land was allotted to one Kanagajothi vide patta No.1459. Thereafter, on 30.10.2009 she had executed a sale deed vide document No.3170/2009 in favour of the petitioner. When the de-facto complainant said to have questioned the same, he had directed him to ask to his vendor and her husband Sundararajan. But there is no response from them. On enquiry he came to know that the said Sundararajan is working in TAHDCO department and thereby misusing his official position to get allotment in his wife's favour. After the allotment, they executed a sale deed in favour of the 2/6
petitioner who is none other than Sundararajan's close friend. Subsequently, the petitioner had executed sale deed in favour of the defacto complainant and thereby cheated him. When the matter stood thus, 2 months before he approached the said Sundararajan to cancel the sale seed and to give him compensation. At that time, the said Sundararajan said to have threatened him with dire consequences. Further, the petitioner had abused him with filthy languages and threatened with dire consequences. Hence, the apprehension of arrest. Hence, a case has been registered as against the petitioner. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioner has not committed any offence. He seeks this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the offences committed by the petitioner are serious in nature.
5.Considering the fact that the petitioner is the purchaser of the land, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain 3/6
conditions.
6.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, 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 Court, Rajapalayam, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order made ready and on further conditions that: [a]the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhaar card or bank pass book to ensure their identity. [b]the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required. [c]the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.
[d]the petitioner 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 petitioner is released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself 4/6
as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].
[f]If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.
23.02.2026 TMG TO
1. The Learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam.
2.The Inspector of Police, Seithur Rural Police Station, Virudhunagar District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6
S.SRIMATHY,J TMG
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.14726 of 2025 Date :23.02.2026 6/6