Ahamed Maideen v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 24/11/2025 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY Ahamed Maideen ... Petitioner Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Pudukkottai City.

Crime No.Not Known of 2025.

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Sathish Kumar P, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor/ Defacto complainant: Mr.A.Ramesh Kumar PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- C-24AB. For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.Not Known of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- 1/4

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 318(4), 316(2) and 351(2) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No. Not known of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner received a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- from the defacto complainant and also certain property documents handed over during the earlier transactions were misused by the petitioner. Hence, the complaint.

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 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.

2/4

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that already the defacto complainant preferred a complaint before the Chief Minister's Cell based on which the petitioner was called for enquiry and enquiry was conducted and closed. Now the defacto complainant again preferred a petition before the Superintendent of Police. He further submitted that after enquiry current paper enquiry also closed.

5. The defacto complainant appeared before this Court as Intervenor and he was heard.

6. Recording the same, this Criminal Original Petition is closed. If the defacto complainant is aggrieved, he is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for work out his remedy in the manner known to law.

24.11.2025 PJL 3/4

S.SRIMATHY,J PJL TO

1. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Pudukkottai City.

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

CRL OP(MD) No.21120 of 2025 Date : 24/11/2025 4/4