Anandhi v. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By, the Inspector of Police

ORDER The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120(B) of IPC (corresponding 318(4), 336, 336(3), 340(2) and 61 BNS) in Crime No. 44 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. Page2 of 6

¶2The case of the prosecution is that defacto complainant alleged that her property was sold using fabricated document and impersonated in the year 2008 by Ramakrishnan and Elangovan and subsequently, sold to several persons and also mortgaged in a bank and thereafter, redeemed and finally came to the petitioner for sale in the year 2019. Hence, the case

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner is an innocent and she has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and she has been falsely implicated in this case. The learned counsel also submitted that the alleged fabrication of records took place during 2008 and FIR came to be registered on 27-11-2025. 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. Page3 of 6

¶6Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are no transaction prior to the purchase by this petitioner. This petitioner is only a subsequent purchaser in the year 2019 and she has nothing to do with the alleged fabrication that took place on 14-03-2008. Hence, considering the totality of the circumstances and upon the fact that the alleged fabrication took place only in the year 2008 and this petitioner purchased the property in the year 2019, being a subsequent purchaser and also upon the fact that petitioner being a woman, this Court is of the firm view that at this length of time, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation. 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 her 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, Tambaram 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: Page4 of 6

(a) If the petitioner fails 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 petitioner shall report before the respondent Police 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. 01-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order nr Page5 of 6 To:

¶1The Judicial Magistrate-I, Tambaram.

¶2The Inspector of Police CCB-Tambaram City Police,

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o16654oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. NR CRLoOPoNo.o16654oofo2026 01-07-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Anandhi ..Petitioner(s) Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. By, The Inspector of Police CCB- Tambaram City Police, Crime No.44 of 2025 ..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 in Crime No.44 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s): M. Simon Jeyakumar For Respondent(s): Mr.N.Palanivel Government Advocate (Crl.side)