Vigneshwaran Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by

PRAYER :-Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.9 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, or on his appearance.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ravi, for Mr.G.Sailendrababu For Respondent : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar,

¶16

1/9

¶17

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

¶18

CRL OP(MD). Nos.10984 and 13739 of 2026

¶19

Counsel for State of TN (Criminal Side) For Intervener : Mr.R.Anand

¶20

in CRL OP(MD)Nos.13739 of 2026:

¶21

1.Palani @ V.S.Palanivel 2.Suresh

¶22

... Petitioners / A8 and A9

¶23

Versus

¶24

The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Thoothukudi, Thoodhukudi District. (Crime No.9 of 2026)

¶25

... Respondent/Complainant

¶26

PRAYER :-Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.9 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, or on their appearance.

¶27

For Petitioners : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar For Respondent : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar, Counsel for State of TN (Criminal Side) For Intervener : Mr.R.Anand

¶28

2/9

¶29

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

¶30

CRL OP(MD). Nos.10984 and 13739 of 2026

¶31

COMMON ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶32

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest in connection with Crime

¶33

No.9 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, seek anticipatory bail.

¶34

2. The case of the prosecution is that in connivance with the other accused, including A1, A2 entered into a criminal conspiracy, colluded with them and fabricated a legal heir certificate as though A1 was the legal heir of the original owner. It is further alleged that, on the strength of the said fabricated legal heir certificate, a sale deed was executed in favour of A2, namely, the present petitioner, for a sale consideration of Rs.1,20,00,000/-. When the defacto complainant came to know of the said illegal transaction, he lodged a complaint before the respondent police. Based on the said complaint, the present case was registered. During the course of investigation, A1 was arrested and, based on his confession statement and the materials collected, the role of the other accused persons also came to light.

¶35

3/9

¶36

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

¶37

CRL OP(MD). Nos.10984 and 13739 of 2026

¶38

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.O.P.

¶39

(MD) No.10984 of 2026 submitted that the petitioner is a resident of Coimbatore and was searching for a property to purchase. Through various brokers, including A8 and A9, the property belonging to A1 was shown to him. Believing A1 to be the absolute owner, the petitioner paid the sale consideration and purchased the property. He would further submit that the petitioner was not aware of the alleged fabrication of records, is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration and is ready to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail.

¶40

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Crl.O.P. (MD) No.13739 of 2026 submitted that the petitioners, who are arrayed as A8 and A9, had already been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi in Cr.M.P.No.2903 of 2026 dated 18.06.2026, subject to the condition that each of them should deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the said condition, they have filed separate petitions before this Court seeking modification of the said condition, which are still pending. However, since the period granted by

¶41

4/9

¶42

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

¶43

CRL OP(MD). Nos.10984 and 13739 of 2026

¶44

the Sessions Court for surrendering has expired, the present petition has been filed seeking anticipatory bail.

¶45

5. Per contra , the learned Counsel for State (Criminal Side) reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that there are totally nine accused in this case. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10984 of 2026 is arrayed as A2, while the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13739 of 2026 are arrayed as A8 and A9. It was submitted that all the accused had colluded with one another, fabricated records and fraudulently registered the sale deed. He further submitted that though three cheques for Rs. 40,00,000/- each were shown as having been issued towards the sale consideration, none of the cheques was presented for encashment and there was no actual passing of the sale consideration. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.

¶46

6. This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

¶47

7. Insofar as the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13739 of 2026 are

¶48

5/9

¶49

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

¶50

CRL OP(MD). Nos.10984 and 13739 of 2026

¶51

concerned, they have already been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge. Since they have already challenged the conditions imposed therein by filing modification petitions before this Court, which are still pending, the present anticipatory bail petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13739 of 2026 is dismissed.

¶52

8. Insofar as the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10984 of 2026 (A2) is concerned, the learned Counsel for State submitted that there was no actual passing of the sale consideration. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner, by relying upon the bank statement, submitted that a sum of Rs.28,50,000/- had been transferred to A1 through banking channels. He further submitted that though cheques for Rs.1,20,00,000/- had been issued towards the sale consideration, A1 did not present the same for encashment and instead demanded cash, which was paid. It was also submitted that photographs are available to substantiate the said payment.

¶53

9. This Court is unable to accept the said contention. The sale deed

¶54

6/9

¶55

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

¶56

CRL OP(MD). Nos.10984 and 13739 of 2026

¶57

records that the sale consideration was Rs.1,20,00,000/-, which is a substantial amount. Admittedly, the cheques issued towards the sale consideration were not presented for encashment and there is no material to establish the actual passing of the entire sale consideration. The explanation that cash was paid in lieu of the cheques cannot, at this stage, be accepted. Further, there is no material to show that A1 had a valid title to the property. The sale deed appears to have been executed solely on the basis of the alleged legal heir certificate, the genuineness of which is under investigation. These aspects require a thorough investigation. If anticipatory bail is granted at this stage, there is every likelihood of the petitioner hampering the investigation.

¶58

10. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10984 of 2026. Hence, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶59

pal

¶60

7/9

¶61

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

¶62

CRL OP(MD). Nos.10984 and 13739 of 2026

¶63

To

¶64