Elumalai v. The State
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory 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, Sankarapuram, Kallakurichi District, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs
Provisions considered
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 s. 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 472
- Registration Act, 1908 s. 82(d)
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 s. 269
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory 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…
Judgment
Crl.O.P.No.11961 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 21.05.2025CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMARCrl.O.P.No.11961 of 2025 Elumalai ... Petitioner-vs-The State Represented by, The Sub Inspector of Police, Vadaponbarappi Police Station, Kallakurichi District. (Crime No.104 of 2025) ... RespondentPRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, pleased to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest by the respondent police in Crime No.104 of 2025 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner: Mr.S.RamachandranFor Respondent: Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)********1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.11961 of 2025ORDERThe petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences under Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 & 472 of IPC and Section 82(d) of Registration Act, in Crime No.104 of 2025, seeks anticipatory bail.
The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused, Subramaniam forged the death certificates of Subramaniam's father, mother, grand father and grand mother as well as the legal heirship certificate of his father, by creating the forged seal of the Tahsildar. Further, the petitioner/A2 altered the revenue records in collusion with the VAO and got registered the sale deed in favour of the petitioner/A2. Hence the case.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the said property and had obtained revenue patta in his name and put up construction in the said property, when his electricity connection was refused, the petitioner 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.11961 of 2025approached the Hon'ble High Court by filing Writ Petition in W.P.No.33767 of 2023 and obtained electricity connection and also patta in his favour. As against this order, the Tahsildar of Sankarapuram filed Writ Appeal in W.A.No.1014 of 2025 and the same is pending, for which the second petitioner was arrested and remanded into judicial custody, based on his confession, the petitioner was roped into this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is no way connected with the alleged occurrence and he is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that there are totally two accused in this case and the petitioner herein is ranked as A1. He further submitted that the petitioner/A2 forged the patta and executed the sale deed in favour of A1. He further submitted that as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court, the Tahsildar issued patta and electricity connection in favour of the petitioner. He further submitted that if the said land is required for public purpose, it is open to the Government to acquire the land. However, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.11961 of 20255. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record including the First Information Report.
Considering the arguments from both sides, the nature of the offence, and taking note of the direction of this Hon'ble High Court, and also considering other relevant aspects, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.
Operative part
Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory 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, Sankarapuram, Kallakurichi District, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that: (a) the petitioner shall report before the concerned Judicial Magistrate daily at 10.30 a.m, from Monday to Friday and shall further 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.11961 of 2025appear before the respondent police at 10.30 a.m., on every Saturday and Sunday until further orders.[b] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.[d] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned 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].[e] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.2023.(f) the petitioner is directed not to encumbrance or alienate the property till the disposal of the trial proceedings in the above Crime Number.21.05.2025drl5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.11961 of 2025
Note:1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.2. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.
To1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Vadaponbarappi Police Station, Kallakurichi District. 2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 3. The Judicial Magistrate, Sankarapuram, Kallakurichi District, 6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.11961 of 2025N.SENTHILKUMAR,JdrlCrl.O.P.No.11961 of 202521.05.20257/7
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory 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, Sankarapuram, Kallakurichi District, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 472; Registration Act, 1908 — s. 82(d); Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 269.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.