Paulraj v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep.By
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY CRL OP(MD) NO. 15716 of 2025 1.Paulraj 2.Saravanan ..Petitioner/A3 and A5 Vs State Of Tamilnadu, Rep By The Inspector Of Police, District Crime Branch Police Station, Tenkasi District.
(Crime No.9 of 2025) Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s):
Mr.K.Kevin Karan For Respondent(s):
Mr.A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.9 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police.
1/8
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 336(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 344 and 61(2) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.9 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant purchased the land in S.No. 642/2C, measuring to an extent of 13 cents situated at Meelakaram Village, Tenkasi District. Thereafter, she found that the first accused along with other accused persons had created a forged death certificate as well as forged legal heir certificate of the defacto complainant. Based on which, he executed power of attorney deed and sale deed. Hence, the complaint.
2/8
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they are no way connected with the alleged occurrence as stated by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) submitted that the second petitioner is only witness to the power of attorney and there is specific overt act attributed against the first petitioner. However, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5.Insofar as the first petitioner is concerned, there is specific overt act attributed against the first petitioner. Therefore, this 3/8
Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the first petitioner. Hence, this criminal original petition is dismissed in respect of the first petitioner.
5.Insofar as the second petitioner is concerned, the second petitioner is only witness to the power of attorney and there is no specific overt act attributed against the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the second petitioner, with certain conditions.
6. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is partly allowed and the second petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli, on 4/8
condition that the second 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that: (a) the second 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 Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;
(b)the second petitioner shall furnish his residential address and mobile number to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli. In the event of any change in his residential address, the second petitioner shall report the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli;
5/8
(c)the second 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 for interrogation and cooperate with the investigation;
(d) the second petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;
(e) the second petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;
(f) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the second petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the second 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 5560] and;
6/8
(g) if the accused/ second petitioner thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS, 2023.
19.09.2025 vsg To 1.The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli.
2. The Inspector Of Police, District Crime Branch Police Station, Tenkasi District 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
7/8
S.SRIMATHY.J., vsg Crl.O.P.(MD).No.15716 of 2025 Date : 19.09.2025 8/8