Ramachandran, v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Ccb
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 07/11/2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY Ramachandran, S/o.P.T.Marimuthu Chettiyar ... Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Madurai City.
(Crime No.62 of 2025) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.Balaji S, For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor/ Defacto complainant : M/s.W.Pamelin, PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.62 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police.
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- 1/6
The petitioner/sole accused, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 465 and 468 of IPC, in Crime No.62 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the defacto complainant are jointly purchased the property in question. Subsequently due to difference of opinion, there is an arbitration proceedings initiated earlier and the petitioner has succeeded in the arbitration against which the defacto complainant preferred an appeal and succeeded in the same.While that being so, the petitioner forged a document as such both of them entered into a partnership deed and preferred a fresh arbitration proceedings. When the defacto complainant came to know that the present complaint was lodged by the defacto complainant. Hence, this case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and has not committed any offences as alleged by the prosecution, and he has been falsely implicated in this 2/6
case. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any conditions which may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail for the petitioner.
4.The defacto complainant is the intervenor in the present case and he vehemently objected to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Admittedly there is an arbitration proceedings was initiated earlier. According to the defacto complainant, subsequent proceedings was initiated by the petitioner without the knowledge of the defacto complainant and an exparte order was obtained and execution petition was filed. In that stage, the defacto complainant came to the knowledge that arbitration proceedings was initiated and arbitrator was appointed unilaterally. The specific charge against the sole accused is that he created documents which was not disclosed in the earlier arbitration proceedings, thereby committed perjury and cheating against the defacto complainant.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that it is a case of civil dispute and the investigation is going on. 3/6
However, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that there is some civil transaction between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.
7. 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 No.I, Madurai District, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order 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; 4/6
[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders;
[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 as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560]; and [f] if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.
07.11.2025 PJL 5/6
S.SRIMATHY,J PJL To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai District.
2.The Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Madurai City.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
ORDER
IN 07.11.2025 6/6