Britto v. The State of Tamilnadu

ORDER The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 408, 465, 468 and 420 of IPC, in Crime No.9 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is an approved valuer attached to the bank. The defacto complainant bank engaged the petitioner to value the property belonging to A1 to A3, on the basis of which, a loan was sanctioned. Subsequently, when SARFAESI proceedings were initiated against the borrowers, it came to light that the valuation certificate issued by the petitioner contained an improper valuation and an incorrect description of the property. Hence, the case has been registered.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that A1 to A3, who are the borrowers, have already been granted bail and that the petitioner had merely issued the valuation certificate. It was further submitted that the petitioner had not derived any benefit from the loan transaction. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Counsel For State of TN (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police, reiterated the prosecution case, and on instructions, reported that the principal allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner falsely certified that the building situated in Survey No. 452/6, Udailipatti Revenue Village, Alwanpatti Village, and that, based on the said valuation certificate, the loan was sanctioned. However, it is an admitted fact that the loan was availed only to A1 to A3, who are the beneficiaries. They have already been granted bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.No. 8927 of 2026, by order dated 07.05.2026 and the investigation is at preliminary stage. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶5I have gone through the FIR and also the connected materials.

6.Considering the above circumstances, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to certain 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 learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen 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. for a period of three 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.

09.07.2026 dss To

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District,

2.The Inspector of Police, DCB Police Station, Pudukkottai District,Pudukkottai.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. K. RAJASEKAR,J DSS s ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13754 of 2026 Date : 09/07/2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 09/07/2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR Britto ... Petitioner/Accused No.4 Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep By, The Inspector of Police, DCB Police Station, Pudukkottai District,Pudukkottai. Cr.No.9 of 2026. ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.9 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : J. Sanjey Vignesh, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar, Counsel For State of TN (Crl.Side)