K.Mohankumar Vs The State rep.by its

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to grant an anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the event of his arrest or on his appearance before any court in connection with the case in Cr.No.01 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.

¶12

For Petitioner: M/S. M.Sathishkumar For Respondent: Mr.P.Dhileepan Govt.Advocate (Crl Side)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, correspondents to Sections 318(4), 336(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in Crime No.01 of 2026 on the file of the

¶15

Page1 of 4

¶16

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

¶17

CRL OP No. 9729 of 2026

¶18

respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

¶19

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other

¶20

persons had created forged legal heir certificate and other Government documents. The A1 had lodged a complaint stating that he had lost the original sale deed and the complaint was registered. Based on the said complaint, the Deputy Inspector of Nemili Police Station issued a “Not Traceable Certificate” on 31.08.2023. Using the said certificate, A1 had fraudulently prepared and registered the settlement deed in favour of A2, his son. Hence, this complaint.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that A1 has already been enlarged on bail. He further submitted that the petitioner was innocent and that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that he 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.

¶22

The learned Govt Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the earlier anticipatory bail was dismissed on 13.03.2026 and there is no change in circumstances. He further submitted that unless the petitioner is taken on custody, the question of recovery of money and the nature of fraud committed by the petitioner could not be identified. Hence, he opposed to grant

¶23

Page2 of 4

¶24

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

¶25

CRL OP No. 9729 of 2026

¶26

anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶27

I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the

¶28

learned counsel on either side.

¶29

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the taking into consideration of the totality of the circumstances, the above submission of the learned Govt Advocate (Crl.Side) cannot be found faulted. Hence, taking into consideration of the severity of the allegation, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

¶30