Raman Nadanasababathi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu
2026 Latest Caselaw 2690 Mad

Madras High Court

Raman Nadanasababathi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 21 May, 2026

Author: R.Vijayakumar

Bench: R.Vijayakumar

                                                                           CRL OP(MD). No. 9712 of 2026




                       BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                               ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

                                                  Date : 21.05.2026

                                                      PRESENT

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

                                            CRL OP(MD). No. 9712 of 2026


                     1.Raman Nadanasababathi
                     2.Rajagopal Periyannan                    ...Petitioners/Accused -1 &2

                                                       Vs

                     State of Tamil Nadu rep. by
                     The Inspector of Police,
                     District Crime Branch,
                     Trichy.
                     (Crime No. 70 of 2024 )                 ...Respondent/Complainant


                                      For Petitioners : Mr.B.Periyannan
                                                     Advocate.
                                      For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj
                                                     Government Advocate (Crl.Side)


                           PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS

                     PRAYER :-

                     1/7




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                          CRL OP(MD). No. 9712 of 2026




                         For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 70 of 2024 on the file of the
                     respondent police.

                     ORDER :

The Court made the following order :-

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the

respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467,

468 and 120B of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No. 70 of

2024 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the

other accused created forged documents intended to be registered

before the de-facto complainant. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that

the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated in

this case and they are no way connected in the above said incident.

They have not committed any offence as alleged by the

prosecution. He would further submit that already a suit was

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

pending between the parties and the same was ended in favour of

A2. He would further submit that already co-accused was granted

anticipatory bail. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the

petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would

submit that based on the complaint given by the defacto

complainant, a case has been registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120B of Bharatiya

Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No. 70 of 2024. He would further

submit that the investigation is pending and the offences are grave

in nature and hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the

petitioners.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on

record.

6. Considering the rival submissions made on either side and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

the nature of offences charged against the petitioners, and

considering the facts that there is a property dispute between the

parties and co-accused was already granted anticipatory bail, I am

inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to the

following conditions:

[a] Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be

released on anticipatory bail on condition to execute a

bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand

only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the

satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate-VI,

Trichy, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioners shall report before the

respondent police, on the first day of every month at

10.30 a.m. until further orders;

[c] the petitioners shall not commit any offences

of similar nature.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during

investigation or trial.

[e] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence

or witness either during investigation or trial.

[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions,

the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled

to take appropriate action against the petitioners in

accordance with law as if the conditions have been

imposed and the petitioners 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)AIR SCW 5560].

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR

can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

(R V J) 21.05.2026 apd

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

To

1.The Judicial Magistrate-VI, Trichy.

2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Trichy.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J

apd

ORDER IN

Date : 21.05.2026

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis