M.Kingston Jeyasingh vs State Of Tamilnadu

P. Dhanabal, J

The petitioner / Accused No.1, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 07.05.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(2), 336(3) and 340(2) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.12 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is employed as company secretary in M/S.SEPC Limited, Chennai. The said company earlier owned lands in keelaveeranam Village, Tenkasi District, measuring 12 acres and 38 cents. It is alleged that the petitioner fabricated company documents with seal and executed a sale deed in favour of the second 2/8 accused namely, Simson before the Uthumalai Sub Registrar office dated 24.02.2026. Hence, the case.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the alleged sale deed executed by the petitioner was also cancelled. He would further submit that the co-accused was granted bail and the petitioner has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 07.05.2026. Therefore, he prayed to grant bail for the petitioner.

The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor would submit that he has no objection to grant bail to the petitioner and the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner has no previous cases. He would further submit that the investigation is pending and the offences are grave in nature and hence, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, nature of offence, and considering the facts that there is a dispute between the company and the employee and the petitioner is none other than an employee of the sister concern of the defacto complainant's company and the alleged sale deed executed by the petitioner was already cancelled and no previous case pending against the petitioner and the co- accused was released on bail and the material part of the investigation might have been completed and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner from 07.05.2026, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

[a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on 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, Tenkasi, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police once in a week ie., on Every Saturday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;

[c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he/she is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which he/she is suspected;

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[e] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner 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 BNS.