Ekambaram vs State

C.Kumarappan, J

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 27.02.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w 120(B) of Indian Penal Code in Crime No.62 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant, claiming to be the owner of the property, later found that his property had been fraudulently sold by impersonation to the petitioner in the year 2023 and thereafter the petitioner sold the same property to a third party in the year 2024. Hence, the case was registered.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the allegation against him is that he purchased the property by impersonation of one Venugopal. However, it is submitted that the impersonator himself has been arrayed as A2 in the present case. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser who believed the documents produced before him and there was no intention to commit any offence. The learned counsel would also submit that the petitioner himself is a victim of the impersonation. The learned counsel would further submit that the occurrence is of the year 2023, the petitioner purchased the property in 2023 and sold it in 2024 and he has been in incarceration since 27.02.2026. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner was involved in the transaction and has purchased the property from the impersonator and subsequently sold the same. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

Considering the submission of the learned counsel on either side, it is seen that the entire transaction is based on documents. Further, taking into consideration the fact that the occurrence is of the year 2023, FIR was registered in the year 2025 and the petitioner has been in custody since 27.02.2026, this Court is of the view that no further custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. Hence, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, subject to certain conditions.

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 Judicial Magistrate-I, Kanchipuram, 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 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions had been imposed and the petitioners 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.