Sharmila Begam v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Dcb
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 16.02.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY CRL OP(MD). No.20803 of 2025 1.Sharmila Begam 2.Beerpathu ... Petitioners Vs State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Tirunelveli.
(Crime No.19 of 2025) ... Respondent For Petitioners : Mr.V.Sasi Kumar For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.G.Anto Prince PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.19 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police.
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police 1/5
for the offences punishable under Sections 335, 336, 338 and 318(2) of BNS in Crime No.19 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the subject-property belonged to the de-facto complainant's father Subbiah and one Kalyani as per the Registered Document No.297/1993 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Radhapuram and the joint Patta No.3472. Thereafter, in respect of 9 cents for plot Nos. 72, 73, 74, the defacto complainant's father and the said Kalyani had executed a General Power of Attorney vide Document No. 308/2011 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Radhapuram, in favour of one Sharmila Begam. On the same day, in respect of plot Nos.68, 69, 70 & 71 General Power of Attorney also executed without any cash transaction and cash receipt. Further the de-facto complainant's father had passed away and without getting any life certificate of the de-facto complainant's father, the accused no.1 to 9 conspired themselves and had executed a document vide Document No.3304/2024 and 3260/2024 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Radhapuram. Moreover, in the life certificate, the de-facto complainant's father's signature was forged. Hence, a case has been registered.
2/5
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 (Criminal Side) strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 5.It is reported that Subbiah died and Kalyani has not signed the Power of attorney. Further, the respondent has not enquired the said Kalyani. 6.The respondent was directed to enquiry the said Kalyani and submit a report before this Court. It is submitted that the Kalyani had never signed the document.
7.Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners are in possession of the forged power of attorney, the nature and gravity of the offence and the specific overt act against the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners at this stage. 3/5
8. With the above said observations, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
16.02.2026 TMG TO 1.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Tirunelveli.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4/5
S.SRIMATHY, J.
TMG
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.20803 of 2025 Date : 16.02.2026 5/5