High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.No.8269 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 24.07.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Crl.O.P.No.8269 of 2025Velavan @ Saravanan.. PetitionerVs.State Rep. byThe Inspector of Police,Ranipet Police Station,Ranipet District.(Cr.No.386 of 2024).. RespondentPRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.386 of 2024 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.For Petitioner: Mr.S.DoraiswamyFor Intervener: Mr.M.Sathish KumarFor Respondent: Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)Page No.1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8269 of 2025ORDERThe petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 296(B) and 351(2) of BNS [406, 420, 294b, 506(i) IPC] in Crime No.386 of 2024, seeks anticipatory bail.2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a person with a reputation and a District Secretary. The sale deed had been executed by the de facto complainant and the siblings in favour of the petitioner. The document in this case, the stamp paper, was purchased on 12.07.2024. Thereafter, the sale deed document was made ready and presented before the SRO on 12.07.2024. Thereafter, prior to registration of the sale deed, the SRO had enquired both parties to the document about the sale, and later, upon confirmation and satisfaction, he registered the document. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested by the de facto complainant and others finding that the property value had increased and demanded extra money, which the petitioner refused. Hence, two months thereafter, the complaint has been lodged. If the contention of the de Page No.2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8269 of 2025facto complainant is that the petitioner had cheated them, they could have immediately lodged the complaint or at least given a complaint to the SRO not to complete the registration, but if at all the de facto complainant has any grievance, they have to file a civil suit to set aside the sale deed and not take criminal action. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Intervener submits that the intervener/brother is the owner of the property. The property contains ground floor, first floor and second floor, which has got shops and commercial establishments. The de facto complainant's brother had no issues; hence, he settled the property in favour of the intervener and other siblings. The intervener and other siblings were not well educated and they have minimum knowledge. The property is situated at Walajapet. They all residing in Vellore, 30 kms away, since they had approached the petitioner, who is a political personality and District Secretary of a political party influential and known to them. The de facto complainant had already entered into an oral agreement of sale with one Ramesh, and Ramesh is also not that well educated. Both Ramesh and the de facto complainant had gone Page No.3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8269 of 2025to the petitioner, who is the District Secretary of the political party, and he assured them that he had influential and he would ensure that the sale deed was executed without any hassles, and with his contacts, he purchased the stamp paper and called the document writer and instructed him to prepare the sale deed. The de facto complainant and Ramesh having little knowledge of the faith kept over, the petitioner had gone to the registration office and, as per the direction of the petitioner, had signed the places wherever it was mentioned. Later it came to be known that the petitioner has falsely prepared the sale deed as though it has been executed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner did not even get a single penny for the entire transaction. Further, the de facto complainant and siblings have no bank account. There are no bank transactions. The property is valued at more than Rs.1.5 crores, and the petitioner has no materials to show at the corresponding date. They had such a huge amount, and they had been cheated. 4. He further submits that earlier he had filed an anticipatory bail application, and it was referred to Mediation. In the meanwhile, the Page No.4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8269 of 2025petitioner was arrested in a job racketeering case in Crime No.54 of 2025, and thereafter he filed a second anticipatory bail application, and it was referred to Mediation. The petitioner, using his clout and experience as a District Secretary of the political party, had evaded the Mediation and refused to come forward with any settlement.5. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent Police while opposing the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner submits that in this case, on the complaint of the de facto complainant, a case has been registered and the petitioner was earlier arrested in a job racketeering case. The petitioner has not participated in the investigation, citing that the matter has been referred to Mediation and is taking time. Further in this case, the investigation so far reveals that the petitioner has not paid any amount to the de facto complainant and others. It is also found that the de facto complainant and others are not that illiterate. The petitioner had a stamp vendor and document writer give a statement that only it was the petitioner who purchased the stamp papers and also gave instructions to prepare the sale deed. On his instructions, a sale deed had Page No.5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8269 of 2025been prepared, and it has been registered. The said Ramesh has signed as a witness. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary.6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsels on either side, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail.7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 24.07.2025cdaPage No.6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8269 of 2025To1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Ranipet.2.The Inspector of Police, Ranipet Police Station, Ranipet District, 3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.Page No.7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8269 of 2025 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.cdaCrl.O.P.No.8269 of 202524.07.2025Page No.8 of 8