R. Siva Kumar, v. The Inspector Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Second day of November Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN CRL OP(MD) No.19813 of 2018 1 R.SIVA KUMAR 2 S.ANBUKUMAR 3 S.RAJESH ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3 Vs STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, K.PUDUR POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT.

CRIME NO.779 OF 2018 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : MR.S.M.A.JINNAH Advocate For Respondent : Mrs.M.ANANTHA DEVI, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 465, 466, 468, 471 and 472 of I.P.C in Crime No.779 of 2018, seek anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant purchased a new 2018 model TATA Sumo Car in Sakthi motors at Vilankudi by giving Rs.5000/- as an advance and received a receipt to that effect wherein his father's name was wrongly mentioned. When the de-facto complainant questioned the same, the company gave evasive reply stating that it is a computer receipt hence no corrections can be done in the same but every mistakes will be corrected in the R.C.Book issued by the office of the R.T.O. In the R.C.Book also, the same mistake was once again reflected. When the de-facto complainant questioned the same before the company, once again the company replied that the said corrections (alterations) were made by the company only with the consent of the office of the R.T.O. And when the de-facto complainant questioned the same they denied the fact stating that such material alterations (corrections) were not made by the company with their consent. Hence, the complaint.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) submitted that the investigation is pending.

5.Taking note of the facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. 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.VI, Madurai and on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioners shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation. The petitioners shall comply with the conditions 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, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed.

sd/- 02/11/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.VI, MADURAI.

2 -DO- THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI.

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, K.PUDUR POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT.

4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1. CC to M/S.S.M.A.JINNAH Advocate SR.No. 21314

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.19813 of 2018 Date :02/11/2018 JM/VR MMS/SAR 1/09.11.2018/2P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/