Madrasdated High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.Nos.19527 & 16992 of 2025K.Velu... Petitioner/A2Vs.State rep by, The Inspector of Police,Madhavaram Police Station,Madhavaram, Tiruvallur District.(Crime No.105 of 2025).... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of BNSS, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.105 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Madhavaram Police Station, Madhavaram, Tiruvallur District.For Petitioner : Mr.S.SureshFor Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)For Intervenor:Mr.Karthik LeelaramCOMMON ORDERThe petitioner/A1 who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 10.06.2025 in connection with Crime No.105 of 2025 for offence under Sections 329(2), 308(2), 351(2), 336(2) and 340(1) BNS, 2023 on the file of the respondent Police, seeks bail.Page No.2 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.19527 & 16992 of 20252.The petitioner/A2, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the offences punishable under Sections 329(2), 308(2), 351(2), 336(2) and 340(1) BNS, 2023 in Crime No.105 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.3.The learned counsel for petitioner/A1 submitted that the case projected is that Sathyakumar claiming himself as only legal heir of Murugesa Gramani had executed power of attorney in favour of petitioner/A1. On the strength of the same, the petitioner/A1 executed a sale agreement in favour of petitioner/A2. Thereafter, advance amount whatever collected handed over to Sathyakumar. Taking advantage of Sathyakumar passed away on 17.08.2021, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint as though Sathyakumar committed forgery and the petitioner/A1 knowing the same, aided Sathyakumar in execution of sale agreement in favour of the petitioner/A2. Hence, he prays for bail.4.The learned counsel for the petitioner/A2 submitted that the petitioner/A2 is an innocent purchaser who had entered into sale agreement Page No.3 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.19527 & 16992 of 2025with the petitioner/A1. On coming to know about difference of opinion between legal heirs of Murugesa Gramani, the petitioner/A2 intents not to further pursue with sale agreement, ready to cancel the same and also filed an affidavit to that effect. Added to it, Sathyakumar had also executed Will in favour of the petitioner/A2. Now, the petitioner/A2 gives an undertaking that he will not probate the Will and claim any right over the said property. Hence, he prays for anticipatory bail.5.The learned counsel for defacto complainant/Intervenor submitted that in this case, the petitioner/A2 produced an affidavit giving undertaking to cancel sale agreement, not to probate the Will executed by Sathyakumar and not to claim right over the property. He further submits that Sathyakumar is not a single legal heir of Murugesa Gramani and he is the son of Murugesa Gramani's second wife. There are three legal heirs to Murugesa Gramani. Initially, Ramachandran, who is the son of first wife of Murugesa Gramani, has been apportioned the property which has been now suppressed and dealt by Sathyakumar. Now, the petitioners/A1 & A2 agreed to restore the property and not to claim any right over the property.Page No.4 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.19527 & 16992 of 20256.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent Police submits that it is a dispute over the property. Murugesa Gramani has two wives. Ramachandran is son of first wife and Sathyakumar is the son of second wife. During the lifetime of Murugesa Gramani, the property was divided and the questioned property was allotted to Ramachandran and he is in possession. Thereafter, Ramachadran sold the property to Bhagat Singh/defacto complainant's father. Suppressing the same, Sathyakumar claiming himself as only legal heir of Murugesa Gramani had executed a power of attorney in favour of petitioner/A1 and the petitioner/A1 executed agreement for sale in favour of petitioner/A2. Since Sathykumar died on 17.08.2021, the alleged power executed by Sathyakumar in favour of the petitioner/A1 is no more in force. Now, an affidavit has been filed by the petitioner/A2 undertaking that the petitioner/A2 not to further pursue the sale agreement, ready to cancel the same and not to probate the Will executed by Sathyakumar.7.Considering the submissions and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that since Sathykumar died on 17.08.2021, the alleged power executed by Sathyakumar in favour of the petitioner/A1 is no more in force. Further, Page No.5 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.19527 & 16992 of 2025the petitioner/A2 filed undertaking affidavit that he intents not to further pursue the sale agreement executed by the petitioner/A1 and ready to cancel the same and not to probate the Will executed by Sathyakumar. Scanned reproduction of affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner/A2 is as follows:Page No.6 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.19527 & 16992 of 2025Page No.7 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.19527 & 16992 of 2025Page No.8 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.19527 & 16992 of 20258.In view of the above, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner/A1 and to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/A2. 9.Accordingly, the petitioner/A1 is ordered to be released on bail on his executing 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 learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Madhavaram, Chennai and on further conditions that:[a]the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety ship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of the identity proofs to ensure their identity;[b]the petitioner/A1 shall appear before the respondent Police as and when required for interrogation;[c]the petitioner/A1 shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required;[d]the petitioner/A1 shall not directly or indirectly cause any threat to the defacto complainant and witnesses;[e]the petitioner/A1 to give an undertaking that if required for being identified by witnesses during investigation or for police custody beyond the first fifteen days, he shall comply to the directions as may be given by the Court in this regard; Page No.9 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.19527 & 16992 of 2025[f]On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned 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)13 SCC 283];[g]If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.10.Further, the petitioner/A2 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 of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Madhavaram on condition that the petitioner/A2 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 respondent Police or the Police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the said Magistrate, on further condition that:[a] if the petitioner/A2 fails to surrender before the said Magistrate within a period of fifteen days, this Order shall stand automatically cancelled; [b]The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression Page No.10 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.19527 & 16992 of 2025in the Application for Suretyship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of the identify proofs to ensure their identity;[c] the petitioner/A2 shall report before the respondent Police as and when required for interrogation.[d] the petitioner/A2 shall not directly or indirectly cause any threat to the defacto complainant and witnesses and shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;[e] the petitioner/A2 shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police officer as and when required;[f] the petitioner/A2 to give an undertaking that if required for being identified by witnesses during investigation or for Police custody beyond the first fifteen days, he shall comply to the directions as may be given by the Court in this regard;[g] the petitioner/A2 shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;[h] 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 petitioners 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];[i] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.Page No.11 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.19527 & 16992 of 202511.Crl.M.P.No.12803 of 2025 in Crl.O.P.No.16992 of 2025 is ordered.16.07.2025Speaking Order/Non Speaking OrderIndex : Yes/NoNeutral Citation: Yes/Novv2Note :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 District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Madhavaram.2.The Central Prison for Men, Puzhal, Chennai.3.The Inspector of Police, Crime Wing, M1 Madhavaram Police Station, Chennai-600 110.4.The Public Prosecutor,Page No.12 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.19527 & 16992 of 2025 Madras High Court.Page No.13 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.19527 & 16992 of 2025M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.vv2Crl.O.P.No.19527 of 2025andCrl.O.P.No.16992 of 202516.07.2025Page No.14 of 14