BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Twenty Fifth day of August Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) Nos.10877 and 11271 of 2011 S.THAVASI RAJ ..Petitioner in Crl.OP(MD)No.10877 of 2011 G.TAMILSELVAN ..Petitioner in Crl.OP(MD)No.11271 of 2011 Vs STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE B-6, JAIHINDPURAM POLICE STATION, MADURAI CITY. CR.NO.1063 OF 2011. ..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT in Both the Petitions For Petitioner in Crl.OP(MD)No.10877 of 2011 : M/S. T.K.GOPALAN Advocate For Petitioner in Crl.OP(MD)No.11271 of 2011 : MR.A.UDAYAKUMAR, Advocate For Respondent in Both the Petitions : MR.A.RAMAR, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITIONS FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406,420 and 379 I.P.C. in Crime No.1063 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are A1 and A2 and that a false case has been registered against them as if the de-facto complainant handed over the bus bearing Registration No.PY-01-D-3427 which was met with an accident. The first accused is not owner of workshop namely Sri Vigneswara Body Builder and he is working in Bank and the second accused is the Manager the de-facto complainant has no right over the property but https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ he gave a complaint and after enquiry, he would came to know that it was closed as a mistake of fact, even though he preferred a Criminal Original Petition and that was also dismissed and then proceeded to Director General of Police and preferred a complaint and already 15 years over and he is not owner of the vehicle, since the case has been registered against them and they apprehend arrest and hence he prays for enlargement on anticipatory bail. 3.Refuting the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the first accused is the owner of Sri Vigneswara Body Builder, the second petitioner is the Manager. The de-facto complainant entrusted the vehicle in the year 1995 for repair works even though taking steps that the petitioner has not returned the vehicle and furthermore, the work shop has been closed and left the place. Now only, the case has been registered and the investigation is pending and hence he seeks for dismissal of this petition for anticipatory bail. 4.The first accused/1st petitioner is the Bank employee and the second petitioner is the owner of work shop as per the F.I.R in the year 1995 the de-facto complainant has entrusted the vehicle bearing Registration No.PY-01-D-3427 to the Sri Vigneswara Body Builder for carry out the repairs till registering the case, there is no evidence would show that he has entrusted the vehicle. As per the F.I.R, it would show that already a complaint has been given that one Selvam has enquired the matter and closed and subsequently, filed a Crl.O.P (MD)No.2525 of 2009. After that only, the case has been registered and except this, no other document has been filed to show that the de-facto complainant entrusted the vehicle to A1 and A2 to carry out the repairs. Even though the petitioners were not arrested,they neither interfered with the investigation nor absconded from the jurisdiction. Therefore, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. 5.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.4, Madurai, and each of them executing 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 No.4, Madurai, and on further condition that the petitioners shall report before the Court concerned daily at https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10.30 a.m. until further orders. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 6.The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, anticipatory bail petition stands dismissed. sd/- 25/08/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.4, MADURAI. 2 -Do-Thro' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE MADURAI. 3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE B-6, JAIHINDPURAM POLICE STATION, MADURAI CITY. +1. CC to M/S. T.K.GOPALAN Advocate SR.No.29207 akm/29.08.11 /3p-6c/ ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) Nos.10877 and 11271 of 2011 Date :25/08/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/