Dismissed¶25

Govindasamy v. The State of Tamil nadu

Anticipatory bail – S.482 BNSS – Madurai Bench of Madras High Court (S.Srimathy, J.) – CRL OP(MD) No.14535 of 2025

Madras HC7 Nov 2025CRL OP(MD)/14535/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail rejected under S.482 BNSS for 1st petitioner Govindasamy in Crime No.772/2025 (Koodal Pudur PS, Madurai) involving forged Aadhaar card, impersonation of land owner and execution of sale deed; offences under Ss. 318(4), 316(2), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2), 319(2) BNS; cheating charges and specific overt act cited; 2nd petitioner Bospandi earlier granted bail; CRL OP(MD) No.14535 of 2025; decided 07.11.2025 by S.Srimathy, J.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail refused to the 1st petitioner (Govindasamy); the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as far as the 1st petitioner is concerned. (The 2nd petitioner, Bospandi, had already been granted anticipatory bail by an earlier order of this Court.) ¶25

Govindasamy Vs The State of Tamil nadu — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Date : 07.11.2025

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

¶6

CRL OP(MD). No.14535 of 2025

¶7

Govindasamy 2. Bospandi ... Petitioners/Accused

¶8

¶9

The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep By The Inspector of Police, Koodal Pudur Police Station, Madurai District. (Crime No.772 of 2025) ... Respondent/Complainant

¶10

For Petitioners : M/s.A.Banumathy

¶11

For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj,

¶12

Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶13

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS

¶14

PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.772 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

¶15

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶16

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the

¶17

offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2), 319(2) of

¶18

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

¶19

BNS, in Crime No.772 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶20

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners along with other accused persons had created the forged Aadhar card and impersonated the original owner of the land to execute the sale deed in favour of the first accused. After verifying the document, the Sub Registrar has given a complaint to the respondent police. Hence, the case.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that this Court has already granted anticipatory bail to the 2nd petitioner. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail to the 1st petitioner also.

¶22

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the 1st petitioner stating that the offences committed by the 1st petitioner are serious in nature and the 1st petitioner is the seller of the property.

¶23

Taking into consideration the fact that the 1st petitioner is facing cheating charges and considering the specific overt act against the 1st petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the 1st petitioner at this stage.

¶24

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

¶25