Allowed

Prasath v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC16 Aug 2016CRL OP(MD)/14791/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 438 CrPC for offences under IPC Sections 294(b), 427, and 506(ii). The order imposed conditions including deposit of a sum and execution of a bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be released on bail with conditions including deposit of Rs.3,000, bond of Rs.10,000, sureties, and regular reporting to police.

Prasath Vs the Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶2

Tuesday, the Sixteenth day of August Two Thousand Sixteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

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

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.14791 of 2016

¶6

PRASATH ... PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED

¶7

Vs STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE RURAL POLICE STATION VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT

¶8

CRIME NO.291 OF 2016 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶9

For Petitioner : M/S.S.RAMASAMY Advocate

¶10

For Respondent : MR.P.KANNITHEVAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶11

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.

¶12

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶13

The petitioner, who is arrayed as Sole Accused, apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 427 and 506(ii) IPC, in Crime No.291 of 2016, on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶14

2.The case of the prosecution is that the due to wordy quarrel, the petitioner abused the defacto complainant with filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences and also damaged the windows glass of his house.

¶15

3.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.

¶16

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is willing to deposit a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the credit of Crime No.291 of 2016 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar.

¶17

5.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submitted that investigation is pending.

¶18

6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. 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, Virudhunagar, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ on condition that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) to the credit of Crime

¶19

No.291 of 2016 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar and he 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 respondent Police or to the Police Officer, who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

¶20

(i) the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.00 a.m. until further orders.

¶21

(ii) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. (iii) the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. (iv) 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].

¶22

7.The Inspector of Police concerned is directed to send a compliance report to the office of the learned Government Advocate, as to whether the petitioner is complying with the conditions or not.

sd/-

16/08/2016

/ TRUE COPY /

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

¶27

¶28

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II, VIRUDHUNAGAR.

¶29

2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT AT SRIVILLIPUTHUR.

¶30

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RURAL POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.

¶31

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

¶32

+1. CC to M/S.S.RAMASAMY Advocate SR.No.44579

¶33

¶34

CSL/SK-SKN/SAR-I/19.08.2016: 2P/6C

¶35

ORDER

¶36

¶37

CRL OP(MD) No.14791 of 2016

¶38

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

¶39

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Date :16/08/2016

Prasath v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasath 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

Veerasamy Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Vinoth Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police

Rajeswari Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Pandidurai Vs the Inspector of Police

M. Punitha Rosy@ Punitha Vs the Inspector of Police

Balasubramanian Vs the Inspector of Police