Allowed

A.Ali Hussain v. the State Rep by Its

Madras HC28 Jun 2016CRL OP/13150/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail petition filed to avoid arrest for alleged offences under various IPC sections related to a property dispute, the Court granted bail by noting the victim was treated as an outpatient with no evidence of serious harm.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted anticipatory bail ordered to be released on bail upon arrest within 15 days subject to executing bond and reporting conditions.

A.Ali Hussain Vs the State Rep by Its — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

CRL.O.P.No.13150 of 2016

¶3

S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.

¶4

Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 294(b), 323, 341 and 506(1) IPC in Crime No.1246 of 2016 on the file of the respondent police, the petitioners have come forward with this petition seeking anticipatory bail.

¶5

Heard both sides.

¶6

3 . The case of the prosecution is that due to property dispute, the petitioners are alleged to have attacked the defacto complainant, due to which, he sustained injuries.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they are no way connected with the offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that they have been falsely implicated in this case.

¶8

Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the injured has been treated as out-patient.

¶9

Considering the fact that the injured has been treated as outpatient, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest or appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur,

¶10

¶11

S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.

¶12

kal

¶13

o n each of them 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 Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

¶14

[a] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

[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 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].

¶18

28.06.2016

¶19

kal

¶20

CRL.O.P.NO.13150 of 2016

A.Ali Hussain v. the State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Ali Hussain v. the State Rep by Its

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

T.Mathyalagan Vs the Inspector of Police

Murugan @ Murugavel Vs the Inspector of Police

M.K.Ravithilakh Vs State Rep.by

V.Kuppuswamy Vs Superintendent of Police

Joshua Vs the Inspector of Police

E.S.Sahul Hameed Vs the Inspector of Police