CRL OP(MD) NO. 14945 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22-07-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR CRL OP(MD) NO. 14945 of 2026 Vellathurai Petitioner(s) Vs 1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By, The Inspector of Police, Palani Adivaram Police Station, Dindigul District. (Crime No.151/2026) 2.The Additional Director General of Police, Crime Branch CID, Chennai. (R-2 impleaded vide Court order dated 22.07.2026 made in Crl.M.P.(MD).No.14785 of 2026 in Crl.O.P. (MD).No.14945 of 2026) Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s): Mr.T.Mohan Senior Counsel for M/s.K.V Law Firm For Respondent(s): Mr.R.John Sathyan State Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.T.Lenin Kumar Counsel for State of TN (Crl. Side) for R-1 & R-2 Mr.K.Govindarajan Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Murali for intervenor Prayer: For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.151/2026 on the file of the respondent police. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ORDER The petitioner/accused, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Section 336(3), 340(2), 318(4), 49 and 61(2) of BNS, in Crime No.151 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2. The defacto complainant, who is the Superintendent (Land Section) of Arulmigu Dhandayuthapani Swamy Thirukovil, Palani, lodged a complaint, alleging that there were properties belonging to Mutt and the Joint Commissioner of the temple is acting as a Fit person of the Mutt. The lands in T.S.Nos.998 and 999, Block No.25, Ward 3, Palani belonged to the Mutt and the value of the said land is nearly Rs.100 crores. The said land has been used as parking space for the temple. It is alleged that there was also an order prohibiting sale of the properties and in this regard, objections were raised to the Registrar by invoking relevant provisions of the Registration Act. Subsequently, it was revealed that the petitioner herein, by colluding with the vendor, namely, Murugadass, executed a sale deed dated 06.07.2026 in Document No.1446/2026, thereby, the property of the Mutt and Temple has been grabbed by the vendor and purchasers. It is further alleged that there were various communications between the Registration Department and the concerned HR and CE Department regarding the objections for registering any encumbrance over the said properties and inspite of the same, this sale deed has been registered. It is also alleged that there is a conspiracy and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis collusion between various persons. Hence, a complaint was lodged and based on the said complaint, the case was registered in Crime No.151 of 2026 for the aforesaid offences. 3. Now, the case is under investigation before the CBCID, Dindigul. The petitioner, herein, who is the purchaser of the property, has come forward with the present anticipatory bail application on the ground that the petitioner is innocent and he is falsely implicated in this case. 4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that originally, there were two suits filed between the Management of the temple and the descendants of the original owner of the land with regard to their rights and also to deal with the properties. O.S.No.358 of 2018 was filed by the Mutt represented by the Joint Commissioner/Administrative Officer of the temple for permanent injunction and O.S.No.545 of 2016 was filed challenging the appointment of Fit person. These suits were dismissed on the ground that the Mutt is a private Mutt and hence, the Fit person is not having any right to deal with the property. He further submitted that the vendor's ancestors are also defendants in the suit. The Civil Court, after conclusion of trial, has held that the Mutt is not a public Mutt and it is a private Mutt and the temple is not having administrative control over the Mutt. Based on the above finding, the vendor of the property has come up with a proposal to sell away the property and it was also made through public notice. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the petitioner herein was having cash with him, which was obtained by way of sale of his land and to avoid payment of capital gain, he intended to purchase the property and accordingly, verified the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.358 of 2018 and O.S.No.545 of 2016. After verifying the documents and since the petitioner found that the property is a marketable property, he has come forward with a proposal to purchase the property for a sum of Rs.2 crores and accordingly, intended to register the sale deed dated 27.03.2026. Subsequently, the Sub Registrar of the concerned Registration Office has issued a refusal checkslip. Objecting the said checkslip, the purchasers have filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.10239 of 2026 and this Court, vide order dated 10.04.2026, has set aside the checkslip and directed the Sub Registrar to register the sale deed dated 27.03.2026, subject to the document being otherwise in order. On the strength of this order, the sale deed is registered and all the legal requirements for registration of the document were complied with and only thereafter, the petitioner has concluded the sale in his favour and there is no criminality involved in this case. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that while considering the anticipatory bail of the co-accused in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.14511 of 2026, this Court, by order dated 17.07.2026, has granted interim protection with direction to appear before the Investigation Officer for the purpose of investigation and the very same benefit may also be extended to the petitioner herein. He further submitted that the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation and prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6. The learned State Public Prosecutor for the respondent Police appeared through virtual mode, submitted that though it seems that the petitioner has purchased the property for a sum of Rs.2 crores, the guideline value of the property is Rs.16 crores. This huge variation in the guideline value and registration value itself shows that there was malafide intention on the part of both the vendor and the purchaser to deal with the property. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that till now there is no passing of sale consideration for the property and without a sale consideration, the property, which is having a guideline value of Rs.16 crores, has been transferred in favour of the petitioner herein, this also clearly reveals that there is a collusion and conspiracy to snatch away the property by taking advantage of the order passed by the Civil Court in the suit. He further submitted that the investigation in this case revealed various facts, the way in which the document was registered also raises incriminating circumstances against the petitioner herein. He also submitted that granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner would hamper the investigation and opposed to grant anticipatory bail. 7. The learned Senior Counsel for the intervenor submitted that appointment of Fit person for administration of the Mutt was challenged by the vendor's father and it reached finality in the Supreme Court and the appointment of the Fit person https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis has been upheld. Only thereafter, the suit has been filed and in the suit, a finding has been rendered that the Mutt is a private Mutt. However, it is not a private Mutt and challenging the decree passed by the Civil Court, a separate appeal has been filed and the same is pending adjudication. He further submitted that taking advantage of the decree and also enriching themselves by adopting various malpractices, the document has been registered and if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, it would hamper the investigation and opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 8. I have considered the rival submissions of both sides and also perused the materials available on record and more particularly, the order passed by the Civil Court with regard to the nature of the Mutt and rights of the parties over the Mutt. 9. The Civil Court has rendered a finding that it is a private Mutt and it is not a public Mutt and further held that the Fit person appointed for administration of the Mutt is not entitled for getting injunction against the descendants of Kuppusamy Maniyakarar, who was the executor of the Dharmasasana deed, based on which, the Mutt has been created and established. On perusal of the recitals in the deed, it is seen that no legal heirs of Kuppusamy Maniyakarar would be entitled to deal with the lands or sell away the lands. Only after recording this observation, the Civil Court has held that it is a private Mutt. However, this finding is subjected to appeal filed by the intervenor. Though the nature of the Mutt and other rights of the parties is questioned and it is pending adjudication in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis appeal, as far as the criminal case is concerned, it is alleged that both the vendor and the purchasers have colluded and created document for the purpose of grabbing the properties of the Mutt. 10. On careful perusal of the sale deed dated 27.03.2026, it reveals that in the consideration portion, it has been stated as follows: “Consideration a) In consideration of the sum of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only), paid by the purchaser to the Vendor by way of Cheque No.201728 dated 27.03.2026. b) In consideration of the sum of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only), paid by the purchaser to the Vendor by way of Cheque No.201729 dated 27.03.2026. c) In consideration of the sum of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only), paid by the purchaser to the Vendor by way of Cheque No.000001 dated 27.03.2026. d) In consideration of the sum of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only), paid by the purchaser to the Vendor by way of Cheque No.000002 dated 27.03.2026.” As on today, there is no material to show that as agreed between the parties, this sale consideration of Rs.2 crores was passed on to vendor. Non-passing of sale consideration for registering the properties of this nature clearly indicates that there is malafide intention among the parties and it strongly supports the case of the prosecution that it is a sham document and there is collusion between the vendor and the purchasers. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11. Apart from that, it is stated that the guideline value of the property is nearly Rs.16 crores, whereas, the vendor has hurriedly sold the property for a total consideration of Rs.2 crores. This also raises serious doubt regarding the bonafide nature of the document. This also stands against the petitioner and there is no explanation for the same. Further, in this case, there are allegations made against the officers involved in registration of the document and other persons including the trustees, who were alleged to have passed a resolution to sell the properties and that they have been paid Rs.1,00,000/- totally. These circumstances require a detailed investigation and since a case of this nature requires investigation under various lines and if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, it would hamper the investigation. In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 12. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 22-07-2026 Lm To 1.The Inspector of Police, Palani Adivaram Police Station, Dindigul District. 2.The Additional Director General of Police, Crime Branch CID, Chennai. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis K.RAJASEKAR,J. Lm Crl.O.P.(MD).No.14945 of 2026 22.07.2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis