Crl.O.P.No.13779 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 05.06.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Crl.O.P.No.13779 of 2026 A.Devadoss ... Petitioner Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu represented by The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Team-8, Office of the Tambaram Commissionerate, Chennai – 600 119. (Crime No.117 of 2026) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to enlarge the petitioner’s anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.117 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Raghavachari, Senior Advocate for Mr.S.Sathish Kumar For Intervenor : Mr.K.Natarajan For Respondent : Mrs.R.S.Indira, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.13779 of 2026 O R D E R The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120(B) of IPC, in Crime No.117 of 2026, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that one Suresh had executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of the petitioner on 07.04.2023. Based upon the said General Power of Attorney, the subject land was sold to the de facto complainant by virtue of three sale deeds in Doc.Nos.5582 of 2023, 5584 of 2023 and 5586 of 2023 relating to Plot Nos.339, 322 and 321 respectively. After purchase of the said properties, the de facto complainant also sold the same to third parties on 19.07.2024 under three different sale deeds registered as Doc.Nos.6776 of 2024, 6801 of 2024 and 6803 of 2024. 3. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that one Beenu Govind Rao executed another General Power of Attorney in respect of some other property on 17.03.2023 and based upon the said General Power of Attorney, the property was sold on 19.07.2024 under Doc.No.15564 of 2024. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.13779 of 2026 It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that these are different transactions and there is no nexus between the Power of Attorney executed by Beenu Govind Rao and the Power of Attorney executed by Suresh Ratnam. However, the de facto complainant has raised a false claim of partnership without any documentary evidence and is claiming a sum of Rs.9 crores as profit. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the intervenor would submit that there was an implied partnership between the de facto complainant and the accused. They were jointly carrying on real estate business and the Power of Attorney was executed in favour of the petitioner only in furtherance of the partnership between the de facto complainant and the petitioner. However, the denial by the petitioner in sharing the profit amounts to cheating and therefore he objected to the anticipatory bail application. 5. The said contention was reiterated by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police, who opposed the anticipatory bail application and submitted that the petitioner has one previous case pending on the file of Maduravoyal Police Station. 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.13779 of 2026 6. Though there is a previous case pending against the petitioner, the same is of the year 2011, nearly 14 years ago. While coming to the factual position, from the submissions made, the entire transaction relates to the sale of land. If at all there is any share to be given to the de facto complainant, the same has to be claimed only by initiating appropriate civil proceedings. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that, in such a factual scenario, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not at all required. Hence, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail, subject to certain conditions. 7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions: (a) If the petitioner fails to surrender before the concerned learned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.13779 of 2026 shall stand automatically cancelled; (b) The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the application for surety ship (Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019]'. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of identify proofs to ensure their identity; (c) The petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of one month, and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation; (d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on anticipatory bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560]; (e) If the petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act. 05.06.2026 (1/2) cda 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.13779 of 2026 C.KUMARAPPAN, J. cda To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram. 2.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Team-8, Office of the Tambaram Commissionerate, Chennai – 600 119. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. Crl.O.P.No.13779 of 2026 05.06.2026 (1/2) 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis