Allowed

T.Jesus @ Shyam v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC21 Jun 2016CRL OP/12898/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner apprehending arrest under IPC Sections 294(b), 323, 427, and 506(i). Conditions of daily reporting, non-tampering with evidence, and non-absconding were imposed, referencing P.K.Shaji.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail to be released upon appearance within 15 days, execution of bond with two sureties, and compliance with specific conditions like daily reporting.

T.Jesus @ Shyam Vs the Inspector of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

CRL.O.P.No.12898 of 2016

¶3

S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.

¶4

Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 427 and 506(i) IPC in Crime No.1432 of 2016 on the file of the respondent police, the petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking anticipatory bail.

¶5

2. The case of the prosecution is that in a wordy quarrel, the petitioners are alleged to have abused the defacto complainant in a filthy language and assaulted him and threatened him.

¶6

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a false complaint has been lodged against the petitioner and he has not committed any such offence.

¶7

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) on instructions submitted that the injured has been treated as out-patient.

¶8

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the fact that the injured has been treated as out-patient, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶9

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 of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tambaram, on his 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 conditions that:

¶10

¶11

S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.

¶12

vrc

¶13

[a] 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.

¶14

[b] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

¶15

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

¶16

[d] 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].

¶17

21.06.2016

¶18

vrc

¶19

CRL.O.P.No.12898 of 2016

T.Jesus @ Shyam v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Jesus @ Shyam v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Prakash Vs the Inspector of Police

M.Abbas Vs the Commissioner of Police

Saravanan Vs State Rep. by

B.Jagan Vs State Rep by

B.Krishnaraj Vs State Rep.by

M.D.John Paulraj Male Age 49 Vs the State Rep by Its