V.S.Lingaperumal vs The State Represented by The Inspector of Police

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 11.08.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 316(2) BNS, in Crime No.397 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The allegation against the petitioner is that he entered into a sale agreement with the de-facto complainant for the sale of his immovable property, for which the de-facto complainant paid an advance of Rs.57 lakhs. Subsequently, the de-facto complainant came to know that the property had been mortgaged with Adithya Birla Finance. At the request of the petitioner to redeem the mortgage, the de-facto complainant paid a further sum of Rs.57 lakhs, though the petitoiner had agreed to pay Rs.60 lakhs for redemption. However, the mortgage was not redeemed. It is further alleged that the property was not sold to the de-facto complainant and that the petitioner subsequently demanded a further sum of Rs.10 lakhs.

The aforesaid allegation is disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that, as evidenced by the patta produced at Page No.27 of the typed set of papers, the property is classified as “Natham land” and the patta was issued by the Special Tahsildar under the Natham Scheme. It is further submitted that, after the dispute arose between the parties, the de-facto complainant allegedly trespassed into the property and let out the same to a third party.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the Chitta in respect of the property is available and that the petitioner received a sum of Rs.57 lakhs from the de-facto complainant for redeeming the mortgage, but failed to do so. It is further submitted that the petitioner subsequently demanded a further sum of Rs.10 lakhs towards the patta in respect of the said property.

Considering the nature of the allegations and counter-allegations, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the dispute is purely civil in nature, and the period of incarceration from 11.08.2026, 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 each for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned XVIIIth Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, 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 daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of 15 days and thereafter as and when required;

[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.