Thangapandiyan v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Dcb

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 04/06/2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Thangapandiyan ... Petitioner/Accused No.1 Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Police Station, Trichy District. Crime No.18/2026. ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :-For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.18 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent Police. For Petitioner : Mr. T.A. Ebenezer, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervener : Mr.A.Lourdu Raj ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 & 120B of IPC, in Crime No.18 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the father of the petitioner executed a sale deed in faour of the petitioner in the year 2005 based on the power deed executed by the father of the defacto complainant. Since the said registration was declared as void, the father of the petitioner executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner and brother of the petitioner. But, all the above three registrations were done after the death of the father of the defacto complainant. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he has no way connected in the above said incident. He would further submit that the petitioner herein is a subsequent purchaser and complaint was lodged by the defacto complainant very belatedly. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that after the demise of father of the defacto complainant, the father of the petitioner executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother by creating a forged power deed as executed by the father of the defacto complainant and the investigation is still pending. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶5The learned counsel for the Intervener would submit that after the demise of father of the defacto complainant, the father of the petitioner herein is said to have executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner by creating the power deed fraudulently in his name. Thereby, cheated the defacto complainant. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶6Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶7Considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioner, and even according to the prosecution case, the father of the petitioner only executed a sale deed based on the power deed executed by the father of the defacto complainant and the alleged occurrence took place in the year 2005 and FIR was registered only on 23.03.2026 very belatedly and the alleged occurrence was borne out of records and hence, there is no chance to the petitioner to tampering the evidence, 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 bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Manapparai, on condition that the petitioner shall 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 concerned and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police, daily at 10.30 a.m until further orders. [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.

04.06.2026 dss P. DHANABAL,J dss

To

1.The Judicial Magistrate Court, Manapparai.

2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Police Station, Trichy District.

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

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.7590 of 2026 Date : 04/06/2026