IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 02.12.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.29912 of 2025 M.S.Lakshminarayanan ... Petitioner Vs. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Team XV, Central Crime Branch, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007. (Crime No.119 of 2021) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused on bail in Crime No.119 of 2021 pending on the file of the respondent Police. For Petitioner : Mr.J.K.madhumathi For Intervenor : Mr.H.S.Mohamed Rafi For Respondent : Ms.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl.Side) O R D E R The petitioner herein apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w 34 and 109 of IPC in Crime No.119 of 2021, registered on the file of the respondent, seeks anticipatory bail. 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2. The allegation against the petitioner, who is arrayed as A3, is that he joined hands with the other accused and facilitated the execution of power of attorney in favour of A1, purportedly by impersonation, for the purpose of grabbing the land belonging to one Parimala Nayagi. It is alleged that instead of utilising the power of attorney in the manner known to law, the accused persons, by impersonation, caused the property to be sold directly in favour of third parties. Thereafter, the defacto complainant lodged the present complaint. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as early as in the year 2019, a power of attorney was obtained in favour of A1 at the instance of A2 and that the petitioner was merely a name lender. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no relationship with A2 and that the power of attorney was not utilised for the purpose of selling the land. According to the learned counsel, the document itself was created as early as in the year 2011 and therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. Hence, is not necessary and hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the Intervenor submitted that the value of the property involved valued as several crores of rupees and that till date, the property has not been restored to the defacto complainant. It is 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis contended that the petitioner played an active role in grabbing the land and therefore, opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner is also an accused in this case and he joined hands with A1 and A2 and, by misusing the power of attorney, misappropriated the property and caused it to be sold in favour of third parties. It is further submitted that the petitioner had also signed as witness in the power of attorney and other fabricated documents. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6. I have gone through the materials placed on record. The statements of the witnesses reveal that the power of attorney was obtained by impersonating the original owner with the active assistance of A1 and A2 and that the petitioner had joined hands with them and signed as a witness to the fabricated documents, including identifying the excutants. In such circumstances, I am of the view that granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage would hamper the investigation. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 02.12.2025 kmm To 1. The Inspector of Police, Team XV, Central Crime Branch, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007. 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis K.RAJASEKAR, J. kmm Crl.O.P.No.29912 of 2025 02.12.2025 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis