M. Santhosh Kumar v. State Represented by Inspector of Police

O R D E R The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) and 329(2) of BNS in Crime No.119 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the subject property at Thirumudivakkam Village was originally executed in favour of the de-facto complainant's mother by the first petitioner in the year 1992. Thereafter, A3 is alleged to have impersonated the original owner and executed a power of attorney in favour of A5, who in turn executed a sale deed in favour of one Sasikala. It is further alleged that one Harish obtained a power of attorney from the petitioners and participated in the alleged fraudulent transactions. Hence, the complaint.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the defacto complainant and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that they are 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 petitioners.

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

¶5I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.

¶6From the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and the materials available on record, it is seen that the property originally measuring an extent of 3 acres belonged to one Ekambaram Mudaliar, who had formed a layout known as Perumal Nagar. Out of the said layout, Plot Nos.62 and 63, measuring an extent of 3,600 sq.ft., were purchased by Walter Michel Arroll and Rita Josebin Arroll. Thereafter, they executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the first petitioner. Based on the said Power of Attorney, the first petitioner sold the property to A5, and thereafter, the second petitioner sold the property to one Sasikala. It is the contention of the petitioners that, though certain allegations have been made with regard to the Power of Attorney dated

04.08.2005, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would strongly oppose the grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that these petitioners are the masterminds behind the entire transaction.

¶7Though such a stand has been taken by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), on a consideration of the factual matrix, it is seen that the co-accused, who are similarly placed, have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.14731 of 2026, by order dated 11.06.2026. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners are entitled to claim parity with the co-accused, namely A4 and A6. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions.

¶8Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kancheepuram on condition that the petitioners 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 petitioners fail to surrender before the concerned learned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days from the 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 petitioners shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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 petitioners thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

07.07.2026 kv To

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kancheepuram.

2.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Tambaram City, Sholinganallur.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. C.KUMARAPPAN.J. kv

07.07.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 07.07.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN 1. M.Santhosh Kumar 2. S.Iyyappan ... Petitioners Vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Tambaram City, Sholinganallur. Crime No.119 of 2026. ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners/accused in the event of arrest by the respondent Police in crime No.119 of 2026 on the file and pending investigation before the respondent Police. For Petitioners : Mr.T.I.Ramanathan For Respondent : Mr.N.Palanivel, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)