BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the First day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr. Justice S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD) No.13775 of 2011 1 C.SUNDAR 2 S.SMITHA ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED 1 & 2 Vs STATE REP. BY THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, NAGERCOIL, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT, CR.NO.67 OF 2011. ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. C.MAYIL VAHANA RAJENDRAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN, Addl. Public Prosecutor ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Cr.No.67 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police for offence under Sections 120(b), 420, 465 and 471 of I.P.C. Apprehending arrest, at the hands of the respondent police, the petitioners are before this Court seeking anticipatory bail. 2.According to the case of the prosecution, the first petitioner purchased a vehicle bearing Regn.No.TN 04 P 4307 from a third party. Thereafter, the first petitioner entered into a hypothecation agreement with the de facto complainant, for which the second petitioner, wife of the first petitioner stood as a guarantor. According to the case of the prosecution, the first petitioner has already entered into a hypothecation agreement with another company and by suppressing the same and by erasing the entry in the Registration Certificate, later hypothecation agreement was entered into. The act of the first petitioner would amount to cheating. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners themselves are the victims in this cheating case. According to him, earlier owner has entered into a hypothecation agreement with a different company. When the vehicle was purchased by the first petitioner, the said fact was not disclosed. In the Registration Certificate also, there was no entry. By believing the words of the vendor, he entered into a hypothecation agreement with the de facto complainant. 4.I have considered the above submissions. 5.Having regard to the above submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that even when the vehicle was sold out to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioners, the entry regarding hypothecation agreement was not made, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, but with stringent conditions: 6.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail, in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Nagercoil, on each 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the first petitioner shall report before the respondent police every day at 10.30 a.m. for a period of four weeks. The second petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C scrupulously. sd/- 01/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, NAGERCOIL. 2. THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE KANYAKUMARI AT NAGERCOIL. 3. THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, NAGERCOIL, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT. 4. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. C.MAYIL VAHANA RAJENDRAN Advocate SR. No.37393 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13775 of 2011 Date :01/11/2011 RJ/3.11.11 2p/6c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/