[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
N. Nagarajan vs The State Rep By The Inspector Of Police on 17 April, 2026
CRL OP No. 9546 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17-04-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
CRL OP No. 9546 of 2026
N. Nagarajan
..Petitioner
Vs
The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
CBCID, Kancheepuram North.
..Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime
No.01 of 2025 pending on the file of respondent police, CBCID, Kancheepuram
North.
For Petitioner: Mr.Naveenkumar
for Mr.S.Sidhartha Vishnu
For Respondent: Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar,
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on
11.03.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 465, 466, 468, 471, 120(b),
419, 420 and 109 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, in Crime No.01 of 2025 on the
file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
__________
Page1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant alleged that
her husband’s property was fraudulently dealt with by creating fabricated
documents through impersonation and false entries were made in the
encumbrance certificate. It is alleged that the petitioner was involved in the said
act of impersonation and execution of documents. Hence, the case was
registered.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there
are about 38 accused in this case and this petitioner is arrayed as A10 and has
been remanded to judicial custody on 11.03.2026. The learned counsel would
further submit that the only overt act attributed to the petitioner is that a Power
of Attorney was created in his name and subsequently cancelled. It is also
submitted that there is no specific allegation in the FIR directly connecting the
petitioner with the offence. The learned counsel would further submit that
similarly placed co-accused have already been enlarged on bail in
Crl.O.P.No.9384 of 2026 dated 16.04.2026. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail
to the petitioner.
4. The said factual position is not seriously disputed by the learned
Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent.
__________
Page2 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the
learned counsel on either side.
6. Considering the submission of the learned counsel on either side, it is
seen that the FIR is of the year 01.03.2025 and the petitioner has been in
custody since 11.03.2026. Considering the limited overt act attributed to the
petitioner, the fact that co-accused have already been released on bail in
Crl.O.P.No.9384 of 2026 dated 16.04.2026 and that further custodial
interrogation of the petitioner is not required, this Court is inclined to extent
parity to the petitioner and enlarge him on bail, subject to certain conditions.
7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his
executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand
only), with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu and subject to the
following conditions:
[a] 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 the identity proofs to ensure their identity;
[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police
everyday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of two weeks and
__________
Page3 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
thereafter as and when required for interrogation;
[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during
investigation or trial;
[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or
witness either during investigation or trial;
[e] on breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the
learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate
action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the
conditions had been imposed and the petitioner released on
bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court itself, as laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of
Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283];
[f] if the petitioner thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR may be
registered under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023.
17-04-2026
NSL
Note:
1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official
Website of this Court.
2. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official
Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To
be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this
Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.
__________
Page4 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu.
2. The Sub Jail, Chengalpattu.
3. The Inspector of Police, CBCID, Kancheepuram North.
4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
__________
Page5 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
NSL
17-04-2026
__________
Page6 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
