Anantha Ramakrishnan, v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by the Inspector of Police,

ORDER The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC in Crime No. 60 of 2018 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. Page2 of 6

¶2The case of the prosecution is that petitioner along with other accused persons allegedly impersonated and created forged documents in respect of the property belonging to the defacto complainant and thereby, attempted to grab the same, Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that his wife Revathy has also been arrayed as accused in this case and she was enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.9566 of 2026. He further submitted that he is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶5I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and perused the materials available on record.

¶6Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, it is seen that according to the prosecution, both the petitioner and his wife Revathy purchased the subject property from one Uma Maheswari whereas the said Uma Maheswari did not have any title over the subject property and she is the impersonator of Page3 of 6 the defacto complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the revenue records and other relevant documents stands in the name of Uma Maheshwari and after thorough verification, this petitioner purchased the subject property from Uma Maheshwari and later, mortgaged the same with the bank and also obtained a loan. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are no requirement for any custodial interrogation. At this juncture, it is also relevant to refer that petitioner's wife Revathy was enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.9566 of 2026 dated 17.04.2026 and she has been arrayed as accused on the ground that she had jointly purchased the property along with her husband/petitioner herein. In such view of the position, this Court is of the firm view that he is entitled to claim parity with his wife. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.

¶7Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Alandur on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions:

(a) If the petitioner fails to surrender before the concerned learned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days from the Page4 of 6 date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;

(b) The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the application for surety ship (Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019]'. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of identify proofs to ensure their identity;

(c) The petitioner shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.30am for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation.

(d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on anticipatory bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560];

(e) If the petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act. 30-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order nr Page5 of 6 To

1.The Judicial Magistrate-I, Alandur.

¶2The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Tambaram City Police Sholinganallur, Chennai - 119

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o12977oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. NR CRLoOPoNo.o12977oofo2026 30-06-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Anantha Ramakrishnan, Son of Chelliah No.69, Rajaji Nagar, 1st Main Road, Madipakkam, Chennai- 91 ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Tambaram City Police Sholinganallur, Chennai - 119 (Crime No. 0060/2026) ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner in the event of arrest by the Respondent Police in Crime No. 60 of 2026 (on the file of the Respondent Police) pending investigation. For Petitioner(s): M/S. Ashwin Prasad For Respondent(s): Mr.N.Palanivel Government Advocate (Crl.side) M/S. G.Devi for Intervenor