Shanmuganathan Kuppu vs The State Of Tamil Nadu
2026 Latest Caselaw 2691 Mad

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2691 Mad
Judgement Date : 21 May, 2026

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Shanmuganathan Kuppu vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 21 May, 2026

Author: R.Vijayakumar

Bench: R.Vijayakumar

                                                                           CRL OP(MD). No. 9703 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. 9703 of 2026


                     1.Shanmuganathan Kuppu
                     2.Anbukamal Annadurai.                       ...Petitioners/Accused

                                                       Vs

                     State of Tamil Nadu rep. by
                     The Inspector of Police,
                     District Crime Branch
                     Ramanathapuram.
                     (Crime No. 3 of 2026 )                  ...Respondent/Complainant


                                      For Petitioners : Mr.R.Vinodh
                                                     Advocate.
                                      For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj
                                                     Government Advocate (Crl.Side)


                           PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS

                     PRAYER :-

                     1/6




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                          CRL OP(MD). No. 9703 of 2026




                         For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 3 of 2026 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 336(2),

336(3), 340(2), 318(4), 319(2) r/w 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,

2023, in Crime No. 3 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police,

seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners are the

subsequent purchasers. The other accused colluded with each

other and created forged documents and dishonestly alienated the

properties belonging to the defacto complainant’s family to the

petitioners. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that

the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated in

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

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

They have not committed any offence as alleged by the

prosecution. 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 336(2), 336(3), 340(2), 318(4), 319(2) r/w

61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No. 3 of 2026. He

would further submit that the petitioners are the subsequent

purchasers of the subject property. 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.

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

6. Considering the rival submissions made on either side and

the nature of offences charged against the petitioners, and

considering the fact that the petitioners are the subsequent

purchasers, 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-II,

Ramanathapuram, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioners shall not commit any offences

of similar nature.

[c] the petitioners shall not abscond either during

investigation or trial.

[d] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence

or witness either during investigation or trial.

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

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

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].