Shanmugaraju v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 16/04/2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Shanmugaraju ... Petitioner/Accused No.4 Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch Unit -I, Madurai. in Crime No. 54 of 2025. ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :-AB. For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.54 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police. For Petitioner : Abhilash S, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.M.Karunanithi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 322, 324, 318, 335, 336(3), 351 of BNS (equivalent to IPC Sections 423, 425, 415, 464, 468, 503), in Crime No.54 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that on 18.06.2024, the defacto complainant executed a general power of attorney in favour of A1. Based on that, A1 executed a sale deed in favour of A2 without the knowledge of the defacto complainant and A3 & the petitioner/A4 stood as witness and Rs.40 lakhs has been withdrawn by A1 from the account of the defacto complainant. Hence, a case has been registered against the accused for the aforesaid offences. Hence, this petition.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and has was falsely implicated in this case and he has no way connected in the above said incident. He would further submit that the petitioner only stood as witness to the document and the co-accused were already granted bail and anticipatory bail and no previous case is pending against the petitioner. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the defacto complainant is aged about 76 years and A1 is the maid of the defacto complainant. On believing A1, the defacto complainant executed a power deed in favour of A1 with respect to 1 ½ acres. But, A1 executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner/A2 without the knowledge of the defacto complainant. A3 and the petitioner/A4 stood as witness to the document. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. A1 was arrested and still in custody. However, he fairly conceded that the co-accused (A2 & A3) were already granted bail and anticipatory bail and no previous case is pending against the petitioner.

¶5Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶6Considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioner, and even according to the prosecution, the petitioner only stood as witness to the document and there is no specific overt act as against him and already A2 and A3 were granted bail and anticipatory bail respectively and he has no previous case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police, every Saturday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of four weeks, and thereafter as and when required for the interrogation. [c] the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature. [d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [e] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

16.04.2026 dss P. DHANABAL,J dss

To

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai.

2.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch Unit - I, Madurai.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.7432 of 2026 Date : 16/04/2026