Sundaram v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
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.21662 of 2025 P.Sundaram ... Petitioner Vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.
(Crime No.19 of 2025) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sivabalan For M/S. Aran Legal Consultancy 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 Cr.No.19 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.
ORDER: The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police 1/6
for the offences punishable under Sections 335, 336, 338 and 318(2) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.19 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the son of one Subbiah. The subject property was jointly owned and enjoyed by the defacto complainant's father and one Kalyani, as per the Radhapuram SubRegistrar office deed No.297/1993 and Joint Patta No.3472. Subsequently, the power of Attorney deed was executed in favour of the 3rd accused through document nos. 308/2011, 309/2011 by the defacto complainant's father and the said Kalyani in respect of the subject property. At the time of executing power deed no money transactions or receipts were exchanged for either of these power of attorney documents and the defacto complainant's father and kalyani were unaware of any payments. The defacto complainant's father had been living with him for past three years. He has now passed away due to ill health.
Presently, the accused no.1 to 9, without the knowledge of the de-facto complainant's father and without obtaining his signature on a life certificate, have colluded to register the sale deeds in document Nos. 3304/2024 and 3260/2024 by forging defacto complainant's father signature on the life certificate. Hence, the apprehension of arrest.
as against the petitioner.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioner has not committed any offence. He seeks this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the offences committed by the petitioner are serious in nature.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is a bone fide purchaser. The same ought to be tested before the Trial Court.
6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with 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 3/6
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.1, Tirunelveli, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready 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. [b]the petitioner shall deposit the alleged sale deeds in Doc Nos.3304 and 3260 of 2024, before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, No.1, Tirunelveli, at the time of producing surety. The petitioner shall also submit an undertaking that he would not deal with the property until the trial is completed. [c]the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required. [d]the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.
[e]the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [f]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 4/6
as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].
[g]If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.
16.02.2026 TMG TO
1. The Learned Judicial Magistrate No.1 Tirunelveli.
2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Tirunelveli District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6
S.SRIMATHY,J TMG
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.21662 of 2025 Date : 16.02.2026 6/6