Rajkumar v. State Rep. By

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 379 IPC, in Crime No.201 of 2023, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is alleged to have sold the car, which was rented by the defacto complainant through ZOOM App. Hence the complaint.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the name of the petitioner was not found in the FIR. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent submitted that there are four accused in this case. He further

submitted that the defacto complainant is said to have rented a car to A1 and A2 through ZOOM App. Thereafter, they have sold the car to A3 and A4. The car was recovered from A4. However, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Having regard to the allegation made against the petitioner in the FIR, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Madhavaram, on condition that the petitioner shall 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the

satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

[a] the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of his Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police every day at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks. [c] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

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

[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned 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].

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

rpl [f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

04.05.2023 rpl