Mukesh Kannan @ Mugesh Kannan v. The State of Tamilnadu rep by
CRL OP(MD)/15174/2026 · 2026-07-23
K Rajasekar
Transfer Petitionbody2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 56959 (MAD) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 56959 (MAD) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15174 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 23.07.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL OP(MD). No. 15174 of 2026 1.Mukesh Kannan @ Mugesh Kannan 2.Muneesh Kannan @ Munish Kannan
...Petitioner
Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Ramanathapuram District. (Crime No.04 of 2026)
...Respondent/Complainant
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Pradeep
Advocate
For Respondent : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar Counsel for State of TN (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 04 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners / Accused, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 18.06.2026, for the offences punishable under Sections 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 318(4) r/. 61(2) of BNS, in Crime No.04 of 2026 on the 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15174 of 2026 file of the respondent police, seeks bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners herein are ranked as A2 and A3, who joining hands with A1 involving in fabrication of patta No.891 in favour of A1 in this case and subsequently, based on the strength of the above said patta A1 executed settlement deed in favour of A2 and A3, thereby, they grabbed the land belongs to the defacto complainant. Hence, the case. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated in this case and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the petitioners are the sons of A1, they have not aware of the fabricated patta. He would further submit that there was settlement registered in favour of A1's father. After his death the property was inherited by their father A1. The petitioner are in custody from 18.06.2026 and ready to abide any condition imposed by this Court. The earlier bail application filed by this petitioner was dismissed on 08.07.2026. Hence, he prayed bail for the petitioner, who being a lady. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the State reiterated the prosecution 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15174 of 2026 case and reported that earlier bail application filed by this petitioner was dismissed by this Court. Thereafter, there is no change of circumstances. He opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners. 5. This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 6.This Court has earlier dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.13668 of 2026 on the following grounds:
“7.I have gone through the FIR and connected material. Though it is stated that the A1's father was having his name in the settlement register, it was taken place several decades ago. The petitioners have not able to produce any other document except the settlement to show that they also having right over the disputed property.
Further the Thasildar of Ramanathapuram, has also categorically given a letter stating that the revenue records also standing in the name of the defacto complainant and not in the name of A1 or any other persons. Hence, it is clear fabrication of patta. Co-accused namely A1 has also been absconded. Now investigation is still pending. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.” 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15174 of 2026 7.Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are in incarceration from 18.06.2026, this Court finds no change of circumstances to grant bail to the petitioners at this stage. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. 8.Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. (K R S J)
23.07.2026 TM To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram. 2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Ramanathapuram District. (Crime No.04 of 2026)
3.The Superintendent, District Jail, Ramanathapuram. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15174 of 2026 K. RAJASEKAR, J. TM
ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No. 15174 of 2026 Date : 23.07.2026 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis