G .Srinivasan v. State Rep by the Inspector of Police

ORDER The petitioner/A5, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 3(5), 212, 236, 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in Crime No.68 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. Page2 of 6

¶2The case of the prosecution is that this is a case of cheating. According to the prosecution, A1 proclaimed that he was the owner of the subject property and sold to the same to A5 by creating forged documents. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even prior to the registration of FIR, the petitioner came to know that his vendor/A1 does not have any right over the property. This petitioner and A1 have executed a Cancellation Deed under Doc. No.2978 of 2026 dated 27.04.2026 before the Sub-Registrar, Madavaram and pursuant thereto, the revenue records were restored in favour of the original owner. He would submit that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court and he is ready to co-operate for investigation. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police opposed the anticipatory bail application by reiterating the prosecution case and fairly submitted that the petitioner has also executed a cancellation deed in Doc. No.2978 of 2026 dated 27.04.2026 and the patta was also restored in the name of the original owner. Page3 of 6

¶5From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate, Criminal Side, it is seen that the petitioner and the 1st accused have executed a Cancellation Deed under Doc. No.2978 of 2026 dated 27.04.2026 cancelling the sale deed executed by the 1st accused in favour of the petitioner vide Doc.No.4897 of 2025 dated 24.07.2025.

¶6In such view of the circumstances, this Court is of the firm view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail with certain conditions.

¶7Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate – I, Poonamallee, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty 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 learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further conditions that: [a] If the petitioner fails to surrender before the concerned learned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically Page4 of 6 cancelled; [b] The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in 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 identity proofs to ensure their identity; [c] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at

10.30 a.m., until further orders; [d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [e] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [f] 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]; [g] If the petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.

16.07.2026 smv Page5 of 6 To

¶1The Judicial Magistrate – I, Poonamallee.

¶2The Inspector of Police, Forgery Investigation Wing, Beta-9, Central Crime Branch – II, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.

¶3The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o18644oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. smv CRLoOPoNo.o18644oofo2026

16.07.2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16.07.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN G.Srinivasan ..Petitioner/A5 Vs The State, Rep. By the Inspector of Police, Forgery Investigation Wing, Beta-9, Central Crime Branch – II, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007. Crime No.68 of 2026. ..Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023 to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in respect of Crime No.68 of 2026 on the file of the respondent, pending investigation. For Petitioner : Mr.J.Suresh For Respondent(s): Mr.N.Palanivel Government Advocate (Crl.Side)