Jegan Alias Jagan v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Ccb, Trichy City,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 19.02.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY CRL OP(MD). No.21666 of 2025 Jegan@Jagan ... Petitioner Vs State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch (CCB), Trichy City, Tiruchirapalli District.
(Crime No.28 of 2025) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr.C.Narendran For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.28 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 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 417, 420, 465, 467, 471, 506(1) 1/5
r/w 120B of IPC, 1860 in Crime No.28 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant's father Late S.Varadharaja had legally purchased 66 cents of land in survery No.109, Kottapattu Village, Trichy under Document No.2677/1982. The property remained in the possession of the complainant's family and after the death of her parents in 2013, the complainant and her husband continued to maintain it. In October 2024, the complainant found that the fencing on the property had been removed and a new wall had been constructed. Enquiries revealed that the accused had illegally alienated the land by preparing forged death certificates of the complainant's parents altering their details and creating a false legal heir certificate showing V.Jagan (A1) as the heir. Using the forged documents A1 executed a fraudulent Power of Attorney in favour of K.
Gautham (A2) and later executed a false sale deed in favour of MM Sahul Hameed (A7) under the document No.3232/2023. Accused Umar Farooq(A6), Robert (A8), Ambika (A9) and others assisted, by producing forged documents. When the complainant questioned the illegal transactions, the accused persons threatened complainant. Hence, a case has been registered.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence. He seeks this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5.This court through the interim order directed the respondent to investigate regarding one Varadarajan and Amudhavalli. A status report is filed stating that the respondent has investigated and one Sudhan who is residing in the said place. The status report is taken on file.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the specific overt act against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage.
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 19.02.2026 TMG 3/5
TO 1.The Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch (CCB), Trichy City Tiruchirapalli District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4/5
S.SRIMATHY, J.
TMG
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.21666 of 2025 Date :19.02.2026 5/5