V.Srinivasan v. State

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 29.07.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR V.Srinivasan .. Petitioner/Accused Vs.

The State Rep by, The Inspector of Police, CCB-I, Vepery, Chennai.

(Crime No.97 of 2025) .. Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest by the respondent in Crime No.97 of 2025 on the file of the respondent.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Berlin Prabhu For Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate (Crl.Side) Page No.1 of 6

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 465, 466, 468, 471, 420, 120(B), 34 of IPC and 43 of IT Act in Crime No.97 of 2025, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that for about 359 vehicles in the Regional Transport Office, Chennai, backlog entries was made fraudulently and fake USER ID, password were created by the private individual named Boopathy who worked as authorized programmer on contract basis. It is also found that 42 vehicles backlog entry has been made using the vehicles number which are unallocated total to 8 numeral number by the Department of Regional Transport Office, Chennai, by using the USER ID and password of the staff members. Hence, the case.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and no way connected with the offences alleged by the prosecution. He further submits that one Boopathy misued Page No.2 of 6

the petitioner's USER ID and password, entered into the Transport Department website and made backlog entries, through which many BS-IV vehicles were registered after the due date as fixed by the Government. He further submits that the petitioner is only Junior Assistant and he has no role in registering the vehicles. Hence, he prays for anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent Police submitted that 359 vehicles in the Regional Transport Office, Chennai, backlog entries was made fraudulently and fake USER ID, password were created by the private individual named Boopathy who worked as authorized programmer on contract basis. He further submits that one Boopathy is the person who had illegally misused the login credentials of the staffs and for the purpose of investigation, the petitioners were called for enquiry.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent Police and Page No.3 of 6

perused the materials available on record, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

6. 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 Metropolitan Magistrate (CCB & CBCID) Court, Egmore 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, and on proof of payment of deposits, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

[a] if the petitioner fails to surrender before the said Magistrate within a period of fifteen days, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;

[b] The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the Application for Suretyship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, Page No.4 of 6

2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of identify proofs to ensure their identity;

[c] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation; [d] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly cause any threat to the de facto complainant and witnesses and shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

[e] the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police office as and when required; [f] the petitioner to give an undertaking that if required for being identified by witnesses during investigation or for Police custody beyond the first fifteen days, he shall comply to the directions as may be given by the Court in this regard; [g] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[h] 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];

Page No.5 of 6

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

[i] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.

29.07.2025 cda To 1.The Metropolitan Magistrate (CCB & CBCID) Court, Egmore. 2.The Inspector of Police, CCB-I, Vepery, Chennai.

3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

Page No.6 of 6