High Court · 2025

CRL.MP(MD).No.345 of 2025(Criminal Side)For R2 & R3:Mr.R.John Sathyan,Senior Advocatefor Mr.S.VellaichamyAdvocate.ORDERThis Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioner on06.01.2025 under Section 483(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS),2023, praying to cancel the pre-arrest bail granted to the second and thirdrespondents in CRL.OP(MD).No.13663 of 2024 dated 30.08.2024 by this Court inCrime No.12 of 2024 on the file of the 1st respondent-police.2. The petitioner herein is the defacto complainant and the second and thirdrespondents are Accused Nos.2 and 4.3. The facts of the case is the that the defacto complainant had instructed oneMr.Dhanapal, who is his authorized representative, to lodge a complaint before the1st respondent police. In the complaint, the defacto complainant has stated that he isthe owner of certain properties situated at Palayamkottai in VM Chathiram Town,bearing Town Survey Nos. 3/2B and 3/4, which have now been converted asSivanthipatti Road, Town Survey No.Ward BS, Block 6, measuring a total extent of 1acre and 96.5 cents. The defacto complainant submits that he had executed a Powerof Attorney on 16.11.2010 in favour of the 1st accused, Mr.B.Dhanasingh, in respect2/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.MP(MD).No.345 of 2025of the aforementioned properties, since he is the brother-in-law of Mr.Dhanapal, aclose family friend of the defacto complainant. As the defacto complainant is anaged person and unable to travel to Tirunelveli, the said Power of Attorney wasgranted for convenience. Thereafter, the 1st accused entered into a sale agreementwith the 2nd accused, Mr.Elanchezhian (the 2nd respondent herein), andsubsequently executed a sale deed in his favour with respect to a portion of theabove-mentioned properties in the years 2018 and 2021. Since the 2ndrespondent/accused failed to pay the sale consideration properly, the defactocomplainant had specifically instructed the 1st accused not to proceed with the saleof the remaining portion of the property in favour of the 2nd respondent/accused.Further, the defacto complainant had instructed the said Mr.Dhanapal to revoke thePower of Attorney executed in favour of the 1st accused as well as the saleagreement. Accordingly, the Power of Attorney was cancelled by way of aregistered document bearing Doc.No.155/2024 dated 03.08.2024, on the file of theSub-Registrar Office, Mylapore, Chennai. Subsequently, the petitioner / defactocomplainant came to know that the 1st accused, in collusion with the other accused,had executed a sale deed in favour of the 4th accused, who is none other than thewife of the 2nd respondent/accused, by forging a life certificate as if it had beensigned by the defacto complainant. Hence, the defacto complainant lodged a3/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.MP(MD).No.345 of 2025complaint before the 1st respondent police, based on which an FIR was registeredagainst the 2nd and 4th accused, along with two named and other unknownaccused persons, for offences punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No. 12 of 2024 dated05.08.2024.4. After the registration of the FIR, the 1st accused moved an application foranticipatory bail before this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.13007 of 2024. During thehearing of the said petition, it was specifically asserted by the learned counsel forthe 1st accused that the signature found on the life certificate was not forged andthat the principal, namely the defacto complainant, had signed the same. Based onthe said representation made by the counsel for the 1st accused, this Court waspleased to grant anticipatory bail to the 1st accused, subject to certain conditions.The order of this Court dated 13.08.2024 reads as follows:-“6.In view thereof, since an assertion is made that the certificatebelongs to that of the Jeyanth Rhenuius only, at this stage, since theother allegations would only part on civil dispute, this Court is inclinedto enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. 7.However, the Investigating Officer shall take the specimensignature of the petitioner, the said Dhanapal, de facto complainant andthe said Jeyanth Rhenuius and also send the impugned life certificate tothe Forensic Lab Department, to firstly find out whether the certificate is4/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.MP(MD).No.345 of 2025forged or not and secondly who forged the signature. If it is found thatthe signature is forged by the petitioner herein, the anticipatory bail willbe cancelled and the petitioner will be taken into custody. 8.With the above conditions, the petitioner is enlarged onanticipatory bail with certain conditions. 9.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail inthe event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen daysfrom the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learnedJudicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli, on condition that the petitionershall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousandonly) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of therespondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to thesatisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, thepetition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on furthercondition that: [a] the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs andLeft Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate mayobtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank Pass Book to ensure theiridentity. [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police, daily at10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks and thereafter, as and whenrequired for interrogation. It is made clear that no relaxation of thecondition for the said period will be entertained by this court. [c] Once the petitioner appears before the Investigating Officer,the Investigating Officer, shall take the samples of the petitioner,5/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.MP(MD).No.345 of 2025defacto complainant and also the original principal Mr.JeyanthRhenuius and promptly send the same for verification for forensicexamination and the lab concerned also concerning the fact that thematter is pending investigation, can expedite the process of sending theexpert opinion. [d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness eitherduring investigation or trial.[e] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation ortrial. [f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learnedMagistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against thepetitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have beenimposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learnedMagistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registeredunder Section 229A IPC.”5. Subsequently, the Investigating Officer obtained specimen signatures ofboth the defacto complainant and the 1st accused and sent the same to the ForensicScience Department for examination. Based on the expert analysis, the investigationrevealed that the life certificate was forged and had been fabricated by the 1staccused with an intention to commit the offence. It is also relevant to point out thatthis Court, while granting anticipatory bail, made a specific observation in6/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.MP(MD).No.345 of 2025paragraph No. 7 of its order dated 13.08.2024, which is as follows:-“If it is found that the signature is forged by the petitionerherein, the anticipatory bail will be cancelled and the petitioner will betaken into custody.”The defacto complainant thereafter filed a petition seeking cancellation of theanticipatory bail granted to the 1st accused in Crl.O.P. (MD) No.13007 of 2024. 6. Subsequently, the 2nd and 4th accused, who are arrayed as the RespondentNos.2 and 3 herein, filed an application seeking anticipatory bail in Crl.O.P. (MD)No.13663 of 2024. This Court, by order dated 30.08.2024, was pleased to pass thefollowing order, which reads as follows: “6.Considering the argument made on behalf of the learnedSenior counsel for the petitioners and considering the fact that the firstaccused power of attorney was in force as on date of the sale deedwhich is executed in favor of the petitioners herein and considering thefact that the sale consideration was transferred by them to the power ofattorney agent online by way of banking transaction, and at present,there is no any proven allegation so as to suspect it is only the accused2 and 4, who have either forged the revenue record or the lifecertificate, with the same condition that the orders of grantinganticipatory bail would be subject to revisit after the furtherinvestigation, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail with certainconditions. 7/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.MP(MD).No.345 of 20257.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bailin the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteendays from the date on which the order copy made ready, before thelearned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli, on condition that thepetitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees TenThousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to thesatisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intendsto arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned,failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissedand on further condition that: [a] the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographsand Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate mayobtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank Pass Book to ensure theiridentity. [b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent Police, dailyat 10.30 a.m., for a period of three weeks and thereafter, as and whenrequired for interrogation. [c] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witnesseither during investigation or trial. [d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigationor trial. [e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learnedMagistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action againstthe petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have beenimposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned8/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.MP(MD).No.345 of 2025Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560]. [f] If theaccused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered underSection 229A IPC. 8.It will open for the respondent police to seize the life certificateand also the original documents belonging to the petitioners herein forthe purpose of investigation only.”7. Thereafter, the defacto complainant filed Crl.M.P.(MD) No.11490 of 2024 inCrl.O.P.(MD) No.13007 of 2024, seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail grantedin favour of the 1st accused. It was submitted that custodial interrogation of the 1staccused was essential in the interest of justice, as he had played a major role incollusion with the other accused in the fabrication of a forged document—an actconstituting a very serious offence. The said petition, after hearing both sides, wasallowed by this Court on 30.10.2024 and the anticipatory bail granted to the 1staccused – Dhanasingh was cancelled.8. Subsequently, the 1st accused preferred an appeal before the Hon’bleSupreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.16659 of 2024. However,the Hon’ble Supreme Court refused to entertain the petition for Special Leave toAppeal and passed the following order:-“2. We are not persuaded to exercise our discretion in favour ofthe petitioner in so far as grant of anticipatory bail is concerned.9/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.MP(MD).No.345 of 20253. If after arrest the petitioner herein prays for regular bail thecourt concerned shall look into the same on its own merits inaccordance with law without being influenced by the fact that thiscourt declined to grant anticipatory bail.”9. M/s.N.Kavitha Rameshwar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submittedthat the act of the accused persons in presenting fraudulent and forged documentsbefore the Registration Department, with the intention of illegally grabbing theproperty of an innocent senior citizen, is punishable under law. Even as per the saleagreement dated November 24, 2014, the transaction was only between the 1st and2nd accused. However, the 1st accused subsequently executed a sale deed in favourof the 4th accused, who is the wife of the 2nd accused. This sequence of eventsclearly reveals the criminal intent and collusion among the accused persons. Theaccused have committed a large-scale fraud in illegally acquiring the land, andhence, their custodial interrogation is essential to uncover the modus operandibehind the fraudulent transaction and to facilitate recovery of the property. Shefurther submitted that the multitude of circumstances surrounding the execution ofthe sale deeds dated 15.07.2024, wherein the 1st accused sold the property to the 4thaccused (wife of the 2nd accused) for a fraction of the market value, raise seriousdoubts about the bona fide of the transaction and the apparent collusion among theparties. The mere fact that the sale consideration was transferred from Respondent10/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.MP(MD).No.345 of 2025Nos.2 and 3 to the 1st accused cannot, by itself, establish their innocence or qualifythem as bona fide purchasers. Notably, the property, valued at approximately Rs.18Crores, was sold for a mere Rs.5 Crores—an aspect that must be carefullyconsidered in assessing the culpability of the 2nd and 4th accused. Accordingly, sheprays to cancel the pre-arrrest bail granted to the second and third respondents inCRL.OP(MD).No.13663 of 2024 dated 30.08.2024.10. Mr. K. Sanjai Gandhi, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side)appearing for the 1st respondent-police, submitted that the doctor who issued thelife certificate has already been examined. The doctor stated that one ShahulHameed brought a person claiming to be the owner, and based on thatrepresentation, he issued the certificate. Further submitted that the investigation,particularly the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report, reveals that the lifecertificate produced by the power agent (A1) before the Sub-Registrar, at the time ofregistering the sale deeds in favour of the third respondent herein, is a forged one. 11. Per contra, Mr.R.John Sathyan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing forMr.S.Vellaichamy, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3, submitted thatthe Respondent no.2 entered into a sale agreement with the 1st accused videagreement dated November 24, 2014, and thereafter executed the sale deed in favourthe Respondent Nos.2 and 3. The Respondent No.3 is none other than wife of the11/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.MP(MD).No.345 of 2025Respondent No.2. The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have no role in obtaining the lifecertificate. They are bona fide purchasers for value. There is no reason to suspect thelife certificate, as the principal (seller) is alive. Assuming that the power agent(Accused No.1) did not pay the sale consideration received from Respondent Nos.2and 3, the proper remedy would be to file a suit for rendition of accounts.Furthermore, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that this is an internal disputebetween the principal and the agent, in which Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have no role.He further emphasized that Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are bona fide purchasers forvalue. 12. This Court has considered the submissions made on either side andperused all the materials available on record. 13. As far as Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, they purchased theproperty from the power of attorney holder of the petitioner. The petitioner hasadmitted the execution of the power of attorney deed dated November 16, 2010 infavour of Dhanasingh (Accused No.1). If the power of attorney holder failed to paythe sale consideration to the petitioner, the petitioner ought to have filed a suit forrendition of accounts or sought other appropriate remedies against the power agent.As far as the allegation of forgery of the life certificate is concerned, the RespondentNos.2 and 3 have no role in obtaining the alleged life certificate. Further, there is no12/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.MP(MD).No.345 of 2025reason to suspect the life certificate as the principal is alive on the date of executionof two sale deeds. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the observations made inCrl.O.P.(MD) No.13007 of 2024 dated 13.08.2024 would not cause prejudice toRespondent Nos.2 and 3. The contention of the prosecution that the life certificate isforged is a matter to be adjudicated during trial. Likewise, the submission of thepetitioner/de facto complainant that the sale deeds were executed for a value belowthe market rate and that the accused persons thereby cheated him is also an issuethat can only be determined during the course of trial. It is to be noted that theabove view is recorded only for the limited purpose of deciding this petition alone.This view, in any way, would not cause any prejudice to the rights of both partiesduring the trial. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the viewthat custodial interrogation of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not necessary in thiscase. Hence, this petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, theCriminal Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. sd/- 08/05/2025 / TRUE COPY / /05/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.-I/ II /III/ IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. 13/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.MP(MD).No.345 of 2025pal TO1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I,TIRUNELVELI.2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TIRUNELVELIDISTRICT.3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CITY CRIME BRANCH POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRASHIGH COURT, MADURAI. ORDER IN CRL MP(MD) No.345 of 2025 IN CRL OP(MD) No.13663 of 2024 Date :08/05/2025 NBF/SAR/09.05.2025 14P/5C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 14/14