Rejina Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.5511 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶4

Date : 24/03/2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

¶7

CRL OP(MD). No.5511 of 2026

¶8

Rejina, W/o. Perumal 2. Anitha, W/o. Seenivasan 3. Thensatamilselvi, W/o. Muthuraj 4. Amutha, D/o. Perumal ... Petitioners/Accused Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Tirunelveli District.. (Crime Number 5 of 2026) ... Respondent/Complainant

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.Vasantha Yugesh S., For Respondent : Mr.P.Kottai Chamy, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr. Sivasubramanian

¶10

1/7

¶11

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

¶12

CRL OP(MD). No.5511 of 2026

¶13

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS

¶14

PRAYER :-

¶15

For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. 5 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent Police.

¶16

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶17

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 420, 120B of IPC, in Crime No.5 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶18

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with the other accused, with the help of fabricated revenue records, obtained a patta in respect of the property in S.No. 827/2A1. Hence, the case.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated in this case and

¶20

they are no way connected in the above said incident. He further submitted that no previous case is pending against the petitioners and

¶21

2/7

¶22

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

¶23

CRL OP(MD). No.5511 of 2026

¶24

they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶25

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) fairly submits that due to a property dispute between the parties, O.S. No. 6 of 2026 is pending before the Sub-Court, Vallioor, and both parties are claiming title over the property and also submitted that no previous case is pending between the parties. However, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶26

The learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that petitioner along with the other accused, with the help of fabricated revenue records, obtained a patta in respect of the property in S.No. 827/2A1 and also submitted that between the parties, O.S. No. 6 of 2026 is pending before the Sub-Court, Vallioor, and both parties are claiming title over the property. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶27

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶28

3/7

¶29

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

¶30

CRL OP(MD). No.5511 of 2026

¶31

Considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature

¶32

of offences charged against the petitioners and there is a property dispute among the family members in respect of the family property, and O.S. No. 6 of 2026 is pending before the Sub-Court, Vallioor and both parties are claiming title over the property and also considering the fact that no previous case is pending against the petitioners, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions:

¶33

[a] Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be

¶34

released on anticipatory bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each

¶35

with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the

¶36

learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Tirunelveli, and on further conditions that:

¶37

[b] the petitioners shall report before the

¶38

respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders.

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

4/7

¶42

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

¶43

CRL OP(MD). No.5511 of 2026

¶44

[e] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or

¶45

witness either during investigation or trial.

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

¶49

The learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Tirunelveli, to accept common sureties. However, it is for the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Tirunelveli, to take an appropriate decision in this regard.

(P D B J) 24.03.2026

tta

5/7

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

¶54

CRL OP(MD). No.5511 of 2026

¶55

TO