Amutha Vs Inspector of Police

Amutha vs Inspector of Police

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Orders Decided Apr 30, 2026

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1438596

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1438596
Court: Chennai Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
Decided On: Apr 30, 2026
Case Number: CRL OP/10095/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Amutha

Respondent

Inspector of Police

Excerpt

.....of 2025, pending investigation on the file of the respondent police. for petitioners : mr.r.veeramani for respondent : mr.p.dhilpeean government advocate (criminal side)orderthe petitioners who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 417 & 420 of ipc in crime no.25 of 2025, seek anticipatory bail.2. the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the defactocomplainant are acquainted with each other. the defacto complainant approached the petitioner to obtain a patta; the defacto complainant handed over a copy of the sale agreement to the petitioner, who used it to obtain the patta in the defacto complainant’s name. subsequently, the petitioner, forging the defacto complainant’s signature, mortgaged the property in favour of canara bank and obtained a loan of rs.10 lakhs, thereby cheated the defacto complainant. hence, the case.3. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that thepetitioner is an innocent person and she has been falsely implicated in this case. he further submit that the petitioner is ready to abide to any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this court. hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.4. the learned government advocate (crl. side) reiterated the prosecutioncase and submitted that this is the second anticipatory bail petition and there is no change in circumstances. hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to5. considering the fact that this is the second anticipatory bail and there is no change in circumstances, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to6. accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. sma to1. the inspector of police,2. . the public prosecutor, high court of madras.g.k.ilanthiraiyan.,j.sma

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.04.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Amutha ... Petitioners Vs. The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, (Crime No.25 of 2025). ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail, in connection with Crime No.25 of 2025, pending investigation on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners : Mr.R.Veeramani For Respondent : Mr.P.Dhilpeean Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

ORDER

The petitioners who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 417 & 420 of IPC in Crime No.25 of 2025, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the defacto

complainant are acquainted with each other. The defacto complainant approached the petitioner to obtain a patta; the defacto complainant handed over a copy of the sale agreement to the petitioner, who used it to obtain the patta in the defacto complainant’s name. Subsequently, the petitioner, forging the defacto complainant’s signature, mortgaged the property in favour of Canara Bank and obtained a loan of Rs.10 lakhs, thereby cheated the defacto complainant. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the

petitioner is an innocent person and she has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submit that the petitioner is ready to abide to any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) reiterated the prosecution

case and submitted that this is the second anticipatory bail petition and there is no change in circumstances. Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to

5. Considering the fact that this is the second anticipatory bail and there is no change in circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Sma To

1. The Inspector of Police,

2. . The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.,J.

Sma

Same Court & Year Chennai Orders · 2026 Same Parties Amutha vs Inspector of Police Same Judge Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan