Allowed

Chandraskar v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Madras HC5 Aug 2016CRL OP(MD)/13952/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail petition filed by two accused persons remanded to judicial custody for robbery and criminal intimidation, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court granted bail subject to specific conditions including daily police reporting, execution of a bond with sureties, and prohibitions on tampering with evidence or absconding. The court relied on Supreme Court precedent to authorize the Bail

What did the court decide?

The petitioners were released on bail subject to executing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties each, daily police appearance, and adherence to conditions regarding evidence and absconding.

Chandraskar Vs the Sub Inspector of Police — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶4

Friday, the Fifth day of August Two Thousand Sixteen

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI

¶7

CRL OP(MD) No.13952 of 2016

¶8

1 CHANDRASKAR

¶9

2 BOOMINATHAN ..PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2 Vs.

¶10

STATE REP.BY

¶11

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE SIVAGANGAI TOWN POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI.

¶12

CRIME NO.495 OF 2016 ..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶13

For Petitioner : M/S.M.S.JEYAKARTHIK Advocate

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.P.KANNITHEVAN, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶15

PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

¶16

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶17

The petitioners who are arrayed as accused nos. 1 and 2 were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 07.07.2016 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 392, 397 and 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.495 of 2016, on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek bail.

¶18

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners waylaid the defacto complainant and snatched a sum of Rs.2,000/- and also threatened him with dire consequences. On complaint, a case has been registered for the above said offences.

¶19

The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and their names have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that they are in judicial custody from 07.07.2016 and prays for enlarging the petitioners on bail.

¶20

4.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) submitted that the there is no previous case against the petitioners and the investigation is pending.

¶21

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the petitioners are in judicial custody https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ from 07.07.2016, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioners are

¶22

¶23

ordered to be released on bail, subject to the following conditions: (i) each of the petitioners 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 learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sivagangai.

¶24

(ii) the petitioners shall appear before the respondent Police daily at 10.00 am and 5.30 pm until further orders.

¶25

(iii) the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

¶26

(iv) the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

¶27

(v) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned 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 P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].

¶28

6.The Inspector of Police concerned is directed to send a compliance report to the office of the learned Government Advocate, as to whether the petitioners are complying with the condition or not.

sd/-

05/08/2016

/ TRUE COPY /

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶33

¶34

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, SIVAGANGAI.

¶35

2 -do-thro' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,SIVAGANGAI.

¶36

3 THE ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶37

4 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SIVAGANGAI TOWN POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI.

¶38

5 THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, SUB JAIL, SIVAGANGAI.

¶39

+1. CC to M/S.M.S.JEYAKARTHIK Advocate SR.No.42297

¶40

ORDER IN

¶41

CRL OP(MD) No.13952 of 2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Date :05/08/2016 PBK/AAL-MPA/SAR-I 05/08/2016 ::2P-7C::

Chandraskar v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandraskar v. the Sub 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. Ramadoss, S/O. P. Ramu, Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Senthilkumar Vs the Inspector of Police

Rajesh Vs the Inspector of Police

Muthaiah, Vs the Inspector of Police

Dr. M. Natarajan Vs the Insepector of Police

Mohaideen Abdul Kadhar Vs the Inspector of Police