Shakul Hameed v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Ccb - Ii
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 24.11.2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY 1.Shakul Hameed 2.Mohammed Maindeen 3.Umar Farook ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.5,6 & 7 Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep By The Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch-II, Trichy City, Trichy.
... Respondent/Complainant (Crime No.28 of 2025) For Petitioners : Mr.R.Sentilkumar, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.28 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.
1/6
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 417, 420, 465, 467, 471 and 506(1) r/w Section 120(b) 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 1st petitioner is the bonafide purchaser and the 2nd and 3rd petitioners are witnesses. The allegation against A7 is that knowing the fact that the defacto complainant is the co-owner of the property in dispute, he has dealt with the property individually. Hence, the complaint.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they are no way connected with the alleged occurrence as stated by the prosecution. He further submitted that A7 is not aware of the co-ownership of the defacto complainant and the petitioners are ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he seek anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
2/6
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioners have no previous cases and investigation is going on. However, opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the petitioners 1 & 2 are the witnesses of the transaction. Further, it is stated that A7 is not aware of the co-ownership of the defacto complainant. It is evident that the defacto complainant is one of the coowner and concealing the same, the present transaction has happened through A1. When the co-owner is also having right, A7 cannot deal with the property. Therefore, this Court is restraining A7 from dealing with the property. Further A7/3rd petitioner is directed to submit the original documents to the prosecution and shall cooperate for investigation. Considering all the facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, with certain stringent conditions.
3/6
6. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Trichy on condition that each of 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Trichy, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition 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 Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;
(b) the petitioners shall report before the respondent daily at 10.30 a.m, until further orders; (c) the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; 4/6
(d) the petitioners 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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/petitioners thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS, 2023. 24.11.2025 PJL To
1. The Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Trichy. 2.The Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch-II, Trichy City, Trichy.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6
S.SRIMATHY, J.
PJL
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.21164 of 2025 Date : 24.11.2025 6/6