(Prayer: This petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS to enlarge the petitioner/accused on bail in Crime No.6 of 2026 dated 10.02.2026 on the file of the respondent police by allowing this application.

This petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS/ 438 of Cr.P.C., to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.6 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.)

1. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.4852 of 2026 and the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.4831 of 2026 are accused in Crime No.6 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police for the alleged offences under Sections 316(2), 318(4), and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.4852 of 2026 is arrayed as A1 in the above crime. The first petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.4831 of 2026, namely, Petchiymmal, is arrayed as A2, and her daughter Priyanka is arrayed as A3.

3. According to the prosecution, A1 to A3 entered into a criminal conspiracy and executed a sale agreement dated 04.10.2024 in favour of the defacto complainant by falsely representing that A2 and A3 were the absolute owners of the property described in the agreement. Believing the said representation, the defacto complainant paid an advance amount of Rs.30,00,000/-. It is further alleged that A1, who is an advocate, actively participated in the transaction and made false representations regarding the ownership of the property belonging to A2 and A3, thereby inducing the defacto complainant to part with the advance amount with dishonest intention. Alleging that the accused persons had cheated the defacto complainant, the respondent police registered the above case on the basis of the complaint and the sale agreement. Subsequently, A1 was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 20.01.2026 and has been in incarceration since then.

4. The petitioners/A2 and A3 have filed Crl.O.P.(MD).No.4831 of 2026 seeking anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in connection with the above crime. A1 has filed Crl.O.P.(MD).No.4852 of 2026 seeking regular bail.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature arising out of an agreement for sale and there is absolutely no element of criminality is involved in the transaction. According to the learned counsel, the defacto complainant has attempted to give a criminal profile to a civil dispute without any incriminating material. It is further submitted that A2 and A3 are the bona fide owners of the property and they possess valid title documents. They have also filed a suit in O.S.No. 187 of 2025 seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defacto complainant from recovering the advance amount allegedly paid under the agreement. Therefore, the initiation of criminal proceedings is nothing but an abuse of process of law. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2024) 10 SCC 690 and contended that mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution unless the ingredients of cheating are made out from the inception of the transaction. Hence, the petitioners seek grant of bail.

6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted, on instructions, that the property covered under the alleged sale agreement is in fact a Housing Board property reserved as Open Space (OS) area meant for public purpose, which is government property. Knowing fully well that the property belongs to the Government and cannot be sold, the accused persons created documents and executed the sale agreement in favour of the defacto complainant and received a huge sum as advance.

7. According to the prosecution, all the accused persons had knowledge that the property did not belong to them and still induced the defacto complainant to part with money. Hence, the ingredients of cheating and criminal breach of trust are clearly made out. Further, despite repeated demands, the accused failed to return the advance amount, which attracts the offence under the relevant provisions.

8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that A1, an advocate, has several criminal antecedents and more than 18 previous cases are pending against him, including a case relating to causing injuries to his own wife. Therefore, considering his antecedents and conduct, he is not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant reiterated the submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and further submitted that relatives of A1 have criminally intimidated the defacto complainant and the witnesses, demanding withdrawal of the complaint. It was also alleged that threats were hurled stating that if A1 comes out on bail, the defacto complainant would face serious consequences and even danger to life. The learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant further submitted that the grant of bail to A1, who is an advocate, would be a threat to the life of the witnesses, as there is a real apprehension that the witnesses may be threatened or influenced. He therefore reiterated the necessity of extending protection to the witnesses under the Witness Protection Scheme.

10. By way of reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegation regarding the subsisting threat has not been made by A1 as such. Even upon perusal of the materials and documents relied upon by the defacto complainant, there is no incriminating material to show that the petitioners had instigated or induced any person to criminally intimidate the defacto complainant or the witnesses.

11. It was further submitted that the previous criminal cases pending against A1 do not relate to any grievous or heinous offences but arose out of protest-related cases and a family dispute between A1 and his wife. In such circumstances, the learned counsel prayed for grant of bail.

12. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record, including the case diary produced by the prosecution.

13. According to the prosecution, the property which forms the subject matter of the sale agreement is a Housing Board property reserved as Open Space Reservation (OSR) land meant for public purpose. Despite knowing that the property belongs to the Government and cannot be alienated, A2 and A3 allegedly entered into a sale agreement with the defacto complainant and received a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- as advance. The prosecution further alleges that the entire transaction was carried out with the active participation and connivance of A1, who is stated to be an advocate, and that he made representations regarding the ownership of the property by A2 and A3, thereby inducing the defacto complainant to enter into the agreement. In the said circumstances, the documents annexed with the sale agreement matters more. The prosecution has contended that custodial interrogation of the accused persons is necessary to unearth the incriminating materials relating to the alleged fabrication of documents and the illegal attempt to alienate valuable Government property reserved for public purpose. Considering the seriousness of the allegations and the nature of the property involved, namely Government land reserved as OSR land in a Housing Board layout, this Court is of the view that the investigation must be allowed to proceed effectively and the custodial interrogation of the accused is required at this stage. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to A2 and A3, and accordingly, Crl.O.P. (MD).No.4831 of 2026 stands dismissed.

14. So far as the bail petition filed by A1, namely the advocate, is concerned, this Court has perused the criminal antecedents placed before this Court. He is history sheeted rowdy in H.S.No.354 of 2016 and still retained. The allegations against A1 are serious in nature, particularly that he actively induced the defacto complainant to purchase the property by producing documents purportedly showing the ownership of A2 and A3. Further, there are allegations that relatives of A1 had threatened the defacto complainant and the witnesses to withdraw the complaint. This Court has also taken note of the following criminal antecedents of A1:

               

               

               In one such case, there is an allegation that A1 had assaulted his wife in a public place by kicking her while she was riding a two-wheeler, for which a case was registered under Sections 341, 294(b), 323 and 506(i) IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. Having regard to the criminal antecedents of A1 and the allegations regarding intimidation of the witnesses, this Court is of the view that if A1 is released on bail at this stage, there is a reasonable apprehension that the witnesses may be influenced or intimidated. Considering the multiple criminal antecedents and the necessity to safeguard the interest of the witnesses, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to A1 at this stage.

15. Accordingly, Crl.O.P.(MD).No.4852 of 2026 stands dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner/A1 to renew the bail application after the examination of the material witnesses during trial.