Senthilkumar v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 03/06/2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

1. Senthilkumar

2. Jain Allaudeen ... Petitioners/Accused No.1 & 2 Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep By, The Inspector of Police, Aranthangi Police Station, Pudukkottai District (Crime No. 446 of 2025). ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. 446 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police...

For Petitioners : M/s. Anbarasan.M., Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ORDER : The Court made the following order :- 1/7

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 & 420 of IPC in Crime No.446 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the Executive Officer Generali India Insurance co., Ltd., (Formerly known as Future Generali India Insurance co., Ltd.,). The company has received summons from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pudukkottai, in MVC.No.161 of 2019 filed by one Sachidanandhan for claiming compensation of Rs.10 lakhs for the injuries sustained to him in a road traffic accident which occurred on 23.09.2018 at about 18.00 hours in Mukkudi to Aranthangi Road near Mukkudi Melath Street. In respect of the said accident, Aranthangi Police registered an FIR in Crime No.375 of 2018 by accusing the driver of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN-55-1098. Summon was issued along with "Certified of Insurance cum Policy Schedule" and "Certified of Insurance cum Policy Schedule" bearing No.V0013584 shows that the alleged document was issued by Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited covering the 2/7

vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN-55-1098 for the period from 10.01.2018 to 09.01.2019. The name of the insured name is mentioned as Mr.Arumugam K, No.18. Manivilan 7th Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukkottail, Tamil Nadu-0622 001. But, on verification, it came to know that, the Insurance Company issued the Insurance policy bearing No.V0013584 for the New vehicle Mahindra Sym Flyte 125 CC for the period starting from 20.06.2008 to 10.062009 in the name of Mr.Jagdish Chand, No.G-1-338, Madangir Delhi-110062 and no such policy was issued for vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN-55-1098. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated in this case and they are no way connected in the above said incident. He would further submit that the co-accused was granted anticipatory bail and no previous cases is pending against the petitioners. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the accused persons created the fake policy in order to get wrongful 3/7

gain and also caused loss to the Insurance Company and the investigation is still pending. Hence, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. He would further submit that the co-accused were released on bail and the petitioners have no previous case.

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

6. Considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioners, and the petitioners have no previous case and the co-accused was granted anticipatory bail and the alleged occurrence took place on 24.09.2018, however FIR was registered on 16.10.2025 and by this time, the material part of the investigation might have been completed, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi, on condition that the petitioner 4/7

shall execute 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 Judicial Magistrate concerned and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police, daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of 30 days, and thereafter as and when required for the interrogation.

[c] the petitioners shall not commit any offences of similar nature.

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

[e] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 5/7

P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

(P D B J) 03.06.2026 dss To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi.

2.The Inspector of Police, Aranthangi Police Station, Pudukkottai District 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

6/7

P. DHANABAL,J DSS

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.9348 of 2026 Date : 03/06/2026 7/7