T.Govindaraj v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 19.11.2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY T.Govindaraj ... Petitioner/ Accused (In Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20587 of 2025) P.Chandrasekar ... Petitioner/ Accused (In Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20613 of 2025) T.Baskar ... Petitioner/ Accused (In Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20616 of 2025) Vs The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

(Crime No.22 of 2025) ... Respondent/Complainant (In all petitions) For Petitioner : Mr.S.Angamuthu (In Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20587 of 2025) For Petitioners : Mr.Pugalendhi.S (In Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.20613 & 20616 of 2025) For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj Government Advocate (Crl. side) (In all petitions) 1/5

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS COMMON PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.22 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

COMMON ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/Accused, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 420, 423, 463 and 464 of IPC, in Crime No.22 of 2025, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons deceived the defacto complainant by inducing him to purchase five acres of land owned by one Mrs.Kamalam, thereby cheating him to the tune of Rs.61 lakhs. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that 2/5

the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent Police submitted that the accused persons deceived the defacto complainant by inducing him to purchase five acres of land owned by one Mrs. Kamalam, thereby cheating him to the tune of Rs.61 lakhs. Therefore, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. A-1 has already been arrested and is in custody. The allegation is that the defacto complainant paid more than Rs.61 lakhs for the purchase of a property. The accused made the defacto complainant believe that there was a property in the name of one Kamalam, but even after receiving the payment, they failed to register the property and thereby cheated the defacto complainant. It is further submitted that A-1 is the prime accused and the petitioners are only brokers. However, this Court is of the considered opinion that A-1, along with the petitioners, 3/5

has cheated both the defacto complainant and the land owner. Considering of the above facts and also considering the magnitude of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions stands dismissed. (S S Y J) 19.11.2025 jbr To

1. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

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

4/5

S.SRIMATHY,J.

jbr

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) Nos.20587, 20613 & 20616 of 2025 Date : 19.11.2025 5/5