High Court · 2025

CRL OP(MD). No.1773 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )Date : 13/02/2025PRESENTTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVELCRL OP(MD). No.1773 of 20251. C.M. Salmaan Fahad,2. Amina Sahana,3. C.S.Mohamed Ali,4. Jahira Begum, ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 VsThe State of Tamilnadu,Represented by the Inspector of Police,Central Crime Branch Police Station, Madurai, Madurai City.Crime No. 56/2024.... Respondent/ComplainantThiyagarajan... Petitioner/Intervenerin CRL MP(MD)No.1370 of 2025in CRL OP(MD)No.1773 of 2025 For Petitioners : Mr.Niranjan S. Kumar, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram, Additional Public Prosecutor For Intervener : Mr.R.Suriya Narayanan1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.1773 of 2025 PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSSPRAYER :- For Anticipatory bail in Crime No.56/2024 on the file of the Respondent-Police.ORDER : The Court made the following order :- This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioners on 28.01.2025under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to grantan order of pre-arrest bail. 2. The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent-Police forthe offence punishable under Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(Act No.45 of 1860) in Crime No.56 of 2024 on the file of the respondent-Police. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner and the defactocomplainant were friends. The first petitioner's family members, i.e., the otheraccused persons, are well-known to the defacto complainant. The first petitioner, whois a textile owner, informed the defacto complainant that due to a financial crisis, heintended to sell several housing plots owned by him near Thirupalai. The defactocomplainant agreed to purchase these plots for a sum of Rs. 6,00,00,000/- and paid an2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.1773 of 2025advance of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- in various installments since 27.03.2018. The firstpetitioner also executed an unregistered Sale Agreement on 08.04.2019. Due to theoutbreak of Covid-19, the registration could not be completed. The defactocomplainant repeatedly requested the first petitioner to execute the sale deed onreceiving the remaining sale consideration. However, whenever the defactocomplainant asked the accused persons to execute the sale deed, they kept assuringhim that it would be done in the coming months, with an intention to cheat thedefacto complainant. 4. On suspecting the accused persons, the defacto complainant verified with theEncumbrance Certificate (EC). At that time, he came to know that the properties,which were agreed to be sold to the defacto complainant, had already been sold toone Saravanan. On questioning the accused persons, they claimed that the firstpetitioner had also borrowed money from other persons, and as those creditors hadthreatened to kill the first petitioner, the sale was executed in favour of Saravanan.The accused persons further stated that they had a share in the ancestral properties,which had not been partitioned, and that on partitioning, they would execute the saledeed for the said land. They requested the defacto complainant not to lodge acomplaint.3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.1773 of 20255. Believing their words, the defacto complainant refrained from lodging anycomplaint. Later, the defacto complainant came to know that the ancestral propertieshad already been partitioned, and the first petitioner's share had been settled infavour of the first petitioner's brother. As a result, the defacto complainant requestedthe accused persons to return the advance amount. However, the accused personsdid not return the amount and instead threatened him with dire consequences. Theallegations against the petitioners are that they neither executed the sale deed norrefunded the advance amount. Hence the case. 6. Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitsthat the petitioners have nothing to do with the alleged offence. He further submitsthat a false case has been foisted against the petitioners. He however submits thatthey are ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. Therefore, heprays for granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.7. Per contra, Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram, learned Additional Public Prosecutorappearing for the respondent Police submits that there is a civil dispute between thepetitioners and the defacto complainant. Considering the amount involved, he praysfor dismissal of this petition.4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.1773 of 20258. Mr.R.Suriya Narayanan, learned counsel appearing for the intervener,submits that the petitioners herein had promised the defacto complainant that theywill execute a sale deed in favour of him. On believing their words, the defactocomplainant paid a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- to the petitioners herein. However, theyneither executed the sale deed nor repaid the amount. The petitioners sold the subjectproperty to a third party with an intention to cheat the defacto complainant. Since ahuge amount is involved in this case, he vehemently opposes the grant of pre-arrestbail to the petitioners. 9. Heard on both sides. This Court has perused the records.10. The petitioners have permanent residence and deep roots in the society andhence, there is less possibility of absconding. Considering the above and consideringthe facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the fact that there is a civildispute between the petitioners and the defacto complainant and with a view to givean opportunity to the petitioners to reform themselves in the society, this Court isinclined to grant an order of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners subject to the followingconditions:(i) The petitioners shall be released on bail in the event of their arrest or in the5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.1773 of 2025event of their surrender before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai, withina period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, onexecuting a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each along withtwo sureties each for a like sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to thesatisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai;(ii) Thereafter, the first petitioner shall appear and sign before the respondent-Police weekly once (i.e., on Monday) at 10.00 a.m., until further orders. (iii) The Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 shall appear before the respondent-Police as andwhen required for interrogation;(iv) The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in theApplication for Suretyship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules ofPractice, 2019']. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai, shall obtain a copy ofany one of identity proofs to ensure their identity;(v) The petitioners shall furnish their residential address and mobile number tothe learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai;(vi) The petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, cause any threat to thedefacto complainant and witnesses and shall not tamper the evidence; and(vii) On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Judicial6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.1773 of 2025Magistrate No.I, Madurai or Trial Court as the case may be, is entitled to passappropriate orders against the petitioners in accordance with law as if theaforementioned conditions are imposed by him as laid down by the Hon-bleSupreme Court in P.K. Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005) 13 SCC 283].11. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed subject to theconditions stated supra. sd/- 13/02/2025 / TRUE COPY / /02/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S. I / II / III / IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TSGTO1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.IMADURAI.2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,MADURAI 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH POLICE STATION, MADURAI, MADURAI CITY.4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.1773 of 2025+1 CC to M/s.NIRANJAN S.KUMAR, Advocate ( SR-1684[I] dated 14/02/2025 ) ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.1773 of 2025 Date :13/02/2025 SS/SKN/SAR- /20/02/2025/ 8P/6CMadurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 8/8