Meganathan v. The State Rep By
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Dated : 07.11.2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY 1.Meganathan 2.Sangeetha @ Sangitha ... Petitioners vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by, The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Ramanathapuram District.
(In Cr.No.11 of 2025) ... Respondent PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.11 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police For Petitioner :Mr.B.Mahendrarajan For Respondent :Mr.S.S.Manoj Government Advocate (Crl.side) For Intervenor :Mr.M.Ganesan ***** 1/7
O R D E R
The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 120B of IPC, in Crime No.11 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the property in dispute belongs to the de-facto complainant and his brother and the first and second accused through their power agent/the first petitioner/third accused by forging the documents, has sold the property in dispute to the second petitioner/fourth accused. Hence, the complaint. 3.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they are no way connected with the alleged crime 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.
2/7
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) submitted that by forging the documents, the first and second accused have sold the property to the second petitioner through his power agent/first petitioner. He further submitted that even though this Court has directed the petitioners to cooperate with the investigation, the petitioners have not cooperated with the investigation. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5.The learned Counsel for the intervenor submitted that the defacto complainant and his brother is the absolute owner of the property and the first and second accused, who are claiming title to the disputed property through a patta issued by the Tahsildar, has sold the property in dispute through their power agent/the first petitioner to the second petitioner and hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
6.On perusal of the documents on record revealed that the first and second accused are claiming title to the property through a patta issued by the Tahsildar. However, the de-facto complainant and his brother are 3/7
claiming title to the disputed property through registered sale deeds and SLR copies standing in the name of their predecessors. Hence, admittedly, there is a title dispute between the parties and that the petitioners cannot sell the property in dispute at this stage. Considering the above facts, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, with certain conditions.
7.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram, 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 the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition 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 4/7
Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;
(b)the petitioners shall furnish their residential address and mobile number to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram. In the event of any change in their residential address, the petitioners shall report the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram; (c)the petitioners 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; (d) the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; (e)the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;
(f)the petitioners are directed to hand over the original sale deeds to the Investigation Officer and shall cooperate with the investigation;
(g)on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the 5/7
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;
(h) if the accused/petitioners thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS, 2023. 07.11.2025 (2/2) cmr To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram. 2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Ramanathapuram District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7
S.SRIMATHY, J.
cmr 07.11.2025 (2/2) 7/7