CRL OP/5994/2026 of Suresh Kumar Vs State rep. by Inspector of Police

CRL OP Nos. 5994, 1200 & 1173 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA CRL OP Nos.5994, 1200 & 1173 OF 2026 AND CRL MP Nos. 2081, 2078 & 5394 of 2026 1. Ponnusamy S/o.Kuppusamy, D.No. 31/6 Annanagar, Dharapuram, Tiruppur - 638 656. 2. Selvaraj S/o.Kuppusamy, Koothampoodi Village, Kazhutharukkanpalayam, Oddanchatram Taluk, Dindigul District- 62461. ..Petitioner(s) in Crl.OP No.1200 of 2026 3. Sathyabama ....Petitioner(s) in Crl.OP No.1173 of 2026 4. Suresh Kumar ...Petitioner(s) in Crl.OP No.5994 of 2026 Vs State of Tamil Nadu Represented by The Inspector of Police, Dharapuram police Station, Tiruppur District. Cr.No. 21/2026 ...Respondent(s) in all Crl.OPs. PRAYER IN CRL OP No. 1200 of 2026: This petition has been filed seeking to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in respect of Crime No. 21 of 2026 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Dharapuram Police Station, Tiruppur District. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 5994, 1200 & 1173 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 11 PRAYER IN CRL OP No. 1173 of 2026: This petition has been filed seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of her arrest in respect of Cr.No.21 of 2026 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Dharapuram Police station, Tiruppur District. PRAYER IN CRL OP No. 5994 of 2026: This petition has been filed seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in respect of Cr.No.21 of 2026 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Dharapuram Police station, Tiruppur District. CRL OP No. 1200 of 2026: For Petitioner(s): Mrs. S.Suriya Priya(VC) For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Udayakumar,G.A(Crl.Side) For Intervener Mr.J.Mohan Prasath CRL OP No. 1173 of 2026: For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Shanmugasundaram, Sr.Advocate assisted by Ms.A.G.Shakeena For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Udayakumar, G.A(Crl.Side) For Intervener Mr.J.Mohan Prasath CRL OP No.5994 of 2026: For Petitioner(s): Mr.N.Manokaran for Mr.N.Ponraj For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Udayakumar,G.A(Crl.Side) For Intervener Mr.J.Mohan Prasath https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 5994, 1200 & 1173 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 11 COMMON ORDER These petitions have been filed seeking to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in respect of Crime No. 21 of 2026 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Dharapuram Police Station, Tiruppur District. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant was working as a Forest Officer and got retired in the year 2023. Whil e so, on 18.06.2008, the de facto complainant purchased a land measuring 1 acre at Old S.F No.2538 (New S.F.No.101/8) for a value of Rs.1 lakh from one S.K. Thangavel vide a sale deed which was registered on the file of the Sub- Registrar, Erode. The said land was situated behind the land of the de facto complainant's wife. In the above said land, the de facto complainant is running an establishment in the name and style of ‘’Karmugil Nattrupannal’’ and has obtained all the documents in his name from the Government. While so, in the year 2022, when the de facto complainant was working in Vallanadu For est area, the Dharapuram Surveyor contacted him through cell phone and informe d him that he received an application from one Selvaraj to survey inf orming that his land is situated within the land of de facto complainant and further, asked the de facto complainant to come in person. Thereafter, in the ye ar 2022, the said Surveyor, along with Village Administrative Officer and ot hers, came to the land of the de facto complainant and informed that they had c ome for https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 5994, 1200 & 1173 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 11 survey of his land. However, when the same was resisted by the de facto complainant, they went back without measuring. Then, after one month, the said Selvaraj gave a complaint against the de facto complainant bef ore the Superintendent of Police, before whom, the de facto complainant also appeared and produced all documents and the enquiry was concluded direct ing them to approach the civil Court. Thereafter, when the de facto complainant enquired further, it came to light that a forged document has been created as if his vendor S.K. Thangavel had sold 10 cents to one Subramaniya Gounder, S/o. Thirumalaisamy Gounder and Nachimuthu Gounder,S/o. Pannusamy Gounder, pursuant to which, a Power of Attorney dated 22.07.2008 was given to one Ponnusamy, an Ex.MLA (A-1). Then, the said Ponnusamy, with the help of the petitioners, obtained a life certificate for the deceased N achimuthu Gounder and Subramaniya Gounder and created a fraudulent sale deed on 02.12.2021 in the name of Selvaraj (A-4). While so, it is further alleged that when the de facto complainant was gathering details for lodging complaint, A-1's wife namely Sathiyabama (A-2) came to his house and threatened to kill him. H ence, the complaint. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.OP.No.1200 of 2026 would submit that the allegation against first petitioner/A1 is that he had entered into a conspiracy and fabricating the life certificate, ha d sold the property belonging to the de facto complainant to the second petitioner/A4 and 3 others https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 5994, 1200 & 1173 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 11 and when the de facto complainant attempted to take action against the accused/A1 & A4, they joined together and using their political influence, threatened him of dire consequences. She would further submit that the sa le deeds were said to be registered on 21.12.2021 and later, coming to know that there were discrepancies in the documents, the purchasers on the inst ance of the other accused, had cancelled the sale deeds and entries made in the encumbrance register have been cleared. The learned counsel would fur ther submit that no prejudice has been caused to the de facto complaina nt. She would further submit that the entire case of the prosecution is borne out by documents. In such circumstances, custodial interrogation of the petitione rs may not be required and hence, the petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail. 4. Mr.R.Shanmugasundaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.OP No.1173 of 2026 would submit that the petitioner is A2, who is the wife of A1. The specific allegation as against the petitioner/A2, is that she, along with her husband/A1, is said to have gone to the house of the de facto complainant and the petitioner/A2 is said to have threatene d him of dire consequences. He would submit that the petitioner/A2, other than being the wife of A1, who is a former MLA, has no role in this case and her name has been unnecessarily dragged into this issue and would further submit that even prior to the registration of the case, the sale deeds were cancel led and the petitioner/A2 has no antecedents and custodial interrogation of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 5994, 1200 & 1173 of 2026 __________ Page6 of 11 petitioner/A2 may not be required and hence, anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner. 5.Mr.N.Manokaran, the learned counsel for the petitioner/A3 in Crl.O.P.No.5994 of 2026 would submit that the petitioner/A3 is a Veteri nary Doctor, working in the Government of Tamil Nadu. A1 had brought two persons to him and believing that they are the persons viz, Subramania Gounder and Nachimuthu Gounder, he gave a Life Certificate. The learned counsel would further submit that the so-called fabricated document is now a vailable in the Registrar’s Office and hence, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner/A3 may not be required and the petitioner/A3 is ready to cooperate in the investigation. 6.Mr.S.Udayakumar, learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that petitioners/accused, by fabricati on of the Life Certificate, had sold the property belonging to the de fact o complainant to third parties. He would submit that though the documents have been canc elled, A1 & A2 have threatened the de facto complainant and A3 has fabr icated life certificates and thereby, he would object for grant of anticipator y bail to the petitioners/accused . 7.Mr.J.Mohan Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the intervenor/ de https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 5994, 1200 & 1173 of 2026 __________ Page7 of 11 facto complainant would vehemently oppose these petitions stating tha t A1 and A3, who are political bigwigs yielding muscle power and politica l power, have conspired with the other accused and by fabrication of document, namely, a Life Certificate, have sold the property belonging to the de facto complainant to a third party and when the de facto complainant was taking steps to initiate action against them, the first petitioner/A1 along with his wife/A2, trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and threatened hi m of dire consequences and he would oppose for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused and the lea rned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the intervenor / de facto complainant and perused t he materials on record. 9. The case has been registered for offences under Sections 120B, 448, 465, 471 & 506(I) of IPC. Though it is alleged that by fabricati on of the documents, the property has been transferred to a third party, it is now submitted that by documents dated 26.11.2025, 12.12.2025 and 13.12.2025 respectively, the sale deeds entered into pursuant to the alleged fabricated document have been cancelled and the property has been restored to the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 5994, 1200 & 1173 of 2026 __________ Page8 of 11 previous owner. Further, the entire documents are available at the O ffice of the Sub Registrar, in the opinion of this Court, the custodial interrogat ion of the petitioners may not be required. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is inc lined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners but with certain conditions. 11. Accordingly, the petitioners/accused are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram on condition that the petitioners/accused shall within two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order exe cute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each, with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that: [a] the petitioners and sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the application for suretyship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of the identity proofs to ensure their identity; [b)The petitioner in Crl.OP.No.5994 of 2026 shall https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 5994, 1200 & 1173 of 2026 __________ Page9 of 11 cooperate with the respondent in the investigation, particularly, in relation to the alleged forged life certif icates said to have been issued by him. [c] The petitioner in Crl.OP.No.5994 of 2026 shall appear before the respondent police daily at 6.30 p,m. for a period of four weeks and thereafter, on every Saturday at 6.30 p.m. until further orders. [d] the other petitioners/other accused shall report before the respondent police daily at 6.30 p.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required; [e] the petitioners/accused shall make themselves available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required; [f] the petitioners/accused shall not directly or indirectly cause any threat to the de facto complainant and witnesses; [g] the petitioners/accused shall give an undertaking that if required for being identified by witnesses during investigation or for police custody beyond the first fifteen days, they shall comply with the directions as may be given by the Court in this regard; [h] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioners/accused in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions have been imposed and the petitioners/accused 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)13 SCC 283]; https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 5994, 1200 & 1173 of 2026 __________ Page10 of 11 [i] If the petitioners/accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S. 12. Accordingly, these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions stand ordered. Consequently, connected miscellaneous are closed. 09-04-2026 Neutral Citation: Yes/No DN To 1. The Inspector of Police, Dharapuram police Station, Tiruppur District. 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras 3.The Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 5994, 1200 & 1173 of 2026 __________ Page11 of 11 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA J. DN CRL OP Nos.5994, 1200 & 1173 OF 2026 AND CRL MP Nos. 2081, 2078 & 5394 of 2026 09-04-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis