Dismissed¶25

Periyasamy v. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police

Madras HC16 Oct 2025CRL OP/14827/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court (K. Rajasekar, J.), Crl.O.P.No.14827 of 2025, decided 16.10.2025: anticipatory bail application under Section 482 BNSS 2023 by Periyasamy (A5) in Crime No.49 of 2025, Avadi City CCB Police Station, involving IPC Sections 419, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 420 (impersonation of vendor and execution of registered GPA, Document No.11738 of 2015). Bail denied on grounds of active participation in fabrication of records and bad antecedents; petition dismissed, connected Crl.M.P. closed.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail was refused because the petitioner actively participated in fabrication of records and has bad antecedents. ¶25

Periyasamy Vs The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

Crl.OP.No.14827 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 16.10.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.14827 of 2025 and

¶7

Crl.M.P.No.11188 of 2025

¶8

Periyasamy ... Petitioner/A5

¶9

Vs. State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Avadi City CCB Police Station, Chennai. ... Respondent (Cr.No.49 of 2025)

¶10

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of the arrest in connection with Cr.No.49 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Sathish Kumar For Intervenor : No appearance For Respondent : Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶12

1/4

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

Crl.OP.No.14827 of 2025

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The petitioner herein / A5, apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the alleged offence under Sections 419, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC in Crime No.49 of 2025, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶17

2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant, one M.Ambika, who purchased the property from one Saraswathi Srinivasan vide doucment No.1843 of 2011 comprised in S.No.186/10, Plot No.8 to an extent of 2400 sq.ft. While so, the 1^st accused impersonated herself as the original Saraswathi Srinivasan, who is the vendor of the defacto complainant and joining hands with other accused executed a registered General Power of Attorney in favour of one Dinakaran / A4 vide Document No.11738 of 2015 on the file of the Sub-Registrar Office, Tiruvallur. Hence, the case.

¶18

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that A2

¶19

was arrested and released on bail and anticipatory bail was also granted to A3. He further submitted that based on the confession statement given by the arrested accused, this petitioner was included as an accused in this case. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶20

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing the respondent reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that there is one

¶21

2/4

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

Crl.OP.No.14827 of 2025

¶24

previous case of similar nature as against the petitioner. Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶25

5.Considering the fact that the petitioner has also actively participated in fabrication of records and also considering the bad antecedents of the petitioner, if anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, he will hamper the investigation. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

16.10.2025

smv