M.S.Senthil Vs State Rep. by Its

2.The State Bank of India RACPC Anna Nagar, Chennai. .. Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. RC0692025E0002/CBI/EOB under Section 120B r/w 420, 468, 471 of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a) of PC Act, 1988, on the file of the respondent police.

¶12

For Petitioner : M/s.G.Babu For Respondent : Mr.B.Mohan Spl Public Prosecutor for CBI cases.

¶13

Page No.1 of 6

¶14

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

¶15

Crl.OP.No.9459 of 2025

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petitioner/ Accused No.6, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 120B r/w Section 420, 468, 471 of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(a) of PC Act, 1988 in Crime No.RC0692025E0002/CBI/EOB, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶18

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is a qualified Chartered Engineer and a Panel valuer for nationalized banks including the defacto complainant's bank; that the petitioner provided an exaggerated and false valuation of the property mortgaged by the co-accused in favour of the defacto complainant, thereby facilitating the co-accused in obtaining a loan from the defacto complainant.

¶19

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that

¶20

the allegations are false; that the petitioner had made a proper assessment of the property and the subsequent valuation of Rs.4,00,00,000/- made by the another valuer is not correct and that in any case, custodial interrogation

¶21

Page No.2 of 6

¶22

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

¶23

Crl.OP.No.9459 of 2025

¶24

of the petitioner is not required and sought for anticipatory bail.

¶25

The learned Special Public Prosecutor (CBI cases) appearing

¶26

for the respondent police, reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the defacto complainant had initially obtained valuations from two empaneled valuers; that the petitioner had valued the property at Rs.6,34,77,000/- and the 5^th accused valued it as Rs.6,32,50,000/-; and that subsequently, the defacto complainant had obtained a fresh valuation reports from two other valuers, who assessed the market value of the property as Rs.4,00,00,000/- and Rs.3,54,23,000/- respectively.

¶27

Considering the fact that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he provided an exaggerated valuation of the property and since the allegations are borne out by the records, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶28

6 . Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in

¶29

Page No.3 of 6

¶30

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

¶31

Crl.OP.No.9459 of 2025

¶32

the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from

¶33

the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Judge

¶34

6XI Additional Special Court for CBI cases, City Civil Court, Singaravelar Maligai, Chennai, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties 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 condition that:

¶35

[a ] the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.

¶36

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police twice a week at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.

¶37

[c] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

¶38

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the Petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the Petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court

¶39

Page No.4 of 6

¶40

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

¶41

Crl.OP.No.9459 of 2025

¶42

himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];

¶43