Suchetha Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, District Crime Branch

The petitioners/A2 and A3, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 338 of BNS in Crime No. 4 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶21

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused cheated the defacto complainant by executing multiple sale transactions over the same plot and interfering with the possession of the defacto complainant.. Hence, the case.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case and they are no way connected in the above said incident. They have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶23

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that despite the earlier sale in favour of the complainant the first and second accused dishonestly concealed the prior transaction and on 04.07.2025 2/6

¶24

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

¶25

CRL OP(MD). No. 3491 of 2026 executed another sale deed in respect of the same property in favour of the third accused. The further case is that the third accused relying on the said document encroached upon the disputed property and commenced construction activities. Hence , he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶26

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶27

Considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioners, and considering the fact that the investigation has been completed and the co-accused were granted anticipatory bail and even according to the case of prosecution this petitioner is the power agent of A1 and thereafter he executed sale deed in favour of the A3 and the defacto complainant and A3 is also a subsequent purchaser and the alleged offences are borne out of records and thereby there is no scope to tamper the evidence and the alleged occurrence took place on 04.04.2025 but the First Information Report has been registered on 11.02.2026,this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions:

¶28

[a] Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released

¶29

3/6

¶30

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

¶31

CRL OP(MD). No. 3491 of 2026 on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties

¶32

each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further conditions that:

¶33

[b] the petitioners shall report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli , on every Monday at 10.00 a.m., for a period of four weeks

¶34

[c] the petitioners shall not commit any offences of similar nature.

¶35

[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

¶36

[e] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

¶37

[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial 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

¶38

4/6

¶39

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

¶40

CRL OP(MD). No. 3491 of 2026 by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the

¶41

Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].

¶42

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be

¶43

registered under Section 269 B.N.S.