Shanmuga Sundaram v. The State of Tamilnadu Rep by the Inspector of Police, Ccb

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 21.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 7732 of 2026 Shanmuga Sundaram ...Petitioner

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, CCB Tirunelveli Police Station, Tirunelveli District. (Crime No.1 of 2026)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Sathish Kumar

Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan Additional Public Prosecutor For Intervenor : Mr.S.Suresh Manickam Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :-For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 1 of 2026 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 for the offences punishable under Sections 308(2), 329(3), 337, 339 of BNS, in Crime No.1 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant has purchased the property from one A.K.Duraisamy Nadar through sale deed

30.09.1982, the said A.K.Duraisamy Nadar had purchased the same from the legal heirs of Shanmugam Asari and Sornathammal namely Mariappan Asari, Meenakshiammal and others through the sale deed dated 28.12.1973, the said Sornathammal has purchased the property through sale deed dated 29.08.1952. The patta to the property stands in the name of the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant is enjoying the property with fencing around it. Now, the accused created then forged death certificate and legal heir certificate. In the name of said Mariappan Asari who is one of the person executed sale deed in favour of the A.K.Duraisamy Nadar, as he died before the said sale and tried to extort money from the defacto complainant. On 10.01.2026, at about 05.30 p.m. The accused along with illegal gang tried to trespass into the defacto complainant's property. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. A civil suit was also pending in O.S.No.28 of 2026 for bare injunction in respect of the suit property. Hence, he prayed anticipatory bail for the petitioner.

¶4The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the offence are grave in nature. The petitioner along with other accused persons, created forged the death certificate and legal heir certificate, stating that Mariappan Asari, who is the predecessor of the vendor of the defacto complainant, died before the execution of the sale deed and trespassed into the property purchased by the defacto complainant. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Investigation is still pending.

¶5The learned counsel for the intervenor also opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner stating that they created the forged documents as if they were issued by the officials. Originally it was not issued by the officials.

¶6Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the available records.

¶7Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, considering the nature of charges levelled against the petitioner, investigation is in initial stage, I am declined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage.

¶8Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed.

(P D B J)

21.04.2026 TM To

1.The Inspector of Police, CCB Tirunelveli Police Station, Tirunelveli District. (Crime No.1 of 2026)

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

P. DHANABAL, J. TM ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No. 7732 of 2026 Date : 21.04.2026