← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/18398/2025granted

Ponramalingam v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep.By

2026-02-24Honourable Mrs Justice S.Srimathy5 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24-02-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY CRL OP(MD) NO. 18398 of 2025

1. Ponramalingam

2. PARAMASUNDARAM Petitioner(s) Vs

1. State of Tamilnadu Rep.by The Inspector of Police District Crime Branch Madurai District (In Cr.No.28 of 2025)

2. Surendran (R2 is impleaded as per order of this court dated 13.11.2025 in Crl.MP(MD).16696/2025 in Crl.OP(MD).18398/2025) Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s): Mr.Haroon Rasheed For Respondent(s): Mr.S.S.Manoj, Government Advocate (Crl.side) for R1 Mr.M.Shakul Hameed for R2 Prayer:

C-24AB For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.28 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police

ORDER

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC in Crime No. 28 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the Defacto Complainant is a retired Military-man and was having the ancestral property at T. Kunnathur, A.Thottiyapatti Village. The Defacto Complainant's father one Irulappan possessed the property in Survey Nos.26/2B, 65/2B, total to an extent of 1 Acre, 38 Cents at T. Kunnathur Bit - II, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District, likewise the Survey No.65/3A and the Resurvey No.26/3A to an extent of 2 Acres, 13 Cents situated at Kunnathur by the way of registered Sale Deed vide Document No.l7 of 1933 and 519 of 1972 on the file of the Peraiyur Sub Registrar, Madurai District, totally 3 Acres, 51 Cents stands in the name of the Defacto Complainant's father Irulappan and the Patta also stands in his name vide Patta No.67.

Due to the family situation, the Defacto Complainant was residing out of station and the Accused herein are the adjacent land owners. By utilizing the Defacto Complainant's family situation, the Accused created a forged unregistered Sale Deed Document dated 07.03.2012 and by utilizing the same, the Patta also stands in the name of the 1st Accused vide Patta No.ll74 and on 12.12.2024 the 1st Accused had executed the Gift Settlement Deed in favour of the 2nd Accused vide Document No.5339 of 2024. Both the Accused joined together and cheated the Defacto Complainant. When the Defacto Complainant asked about the same, they used filthy language with criminal intimidation. Hence, the apprehension of arrest. Hence, a case has been registered as against the petitioners. 3.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and they have not committed any offence. He seeks this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the offences committed by the petitioners are serious in nature. 5.The allegation against the petitioners is that based on the forged patta and Venillai Pathiram, they are claiming right of the property. Subsequently, they had executed a gift deed in favour of the second petitioner. 6.The defacto complainant was directed to be present before this Court.

defacto complainant appeared before this Court and submitted that he had never executed Vennilai Pathiram and he was totally unaware of the alleged Vennilai Pathiram and forged patta. He came to know about the forged patta when the defacto complainant's mother died in the year 2020.

7.The petitioners submitted that they have filed O.S.No.102 of 2025. The said submission is recorded.

8.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. 9.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, 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 Learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order made ready 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 Aadhaar card or bank pass book to ensure their identity. [b]The petitioners are directed to cancel the gift sale deed which was executed by

the 1st petitioner in favour of the second petitioner, ie., Doc.No.5339 of 2024, dated 12.12.2024. Further, the petitioners shall submit an undertaking that they will not deal with the property.

[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. [d]the petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

[e]the petitioners 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 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 as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560]. [g]If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.

24-02-2026 Tmg To 1.The Inspector of Police District Crime Branch Madurai District

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

3. Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai.