Allowed

M.Shamla, Aged 33 Years v. State by

Madras HC25 Jul 2018CRL OP/18180/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a criminal case involving assault and attempted murder, subject to conditions including surrender within 15 days, daily police reporting, and non-tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be released on bail if arrested, conditional on surrender within 15 days, execution of bond, daily police reporting, and non-tampering with evidence.

M.Shamla, Aged 33 Years Vs State by — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Wednesday, the Twenty Fifth day of July Two Thousand Eighteen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.18180 of 2018

¶6

M.SHAMLA [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]

¶7

¶8

STATE BY [ RESPONDENT ] INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

¶9

H8, THIRUVOTTIYUR POLICE STATION, THIRUVOTTIYUR, CHENNAI - 19. CR.NO.838 OF 2018

¶10

For Petitioner : M/S.S.SATHISH KUMAR Advocate

¶11

For Respondent : MR. M.MOHAMED RIYAZ, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶12

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

¶13

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶14

The petitioner seek anticipatory bail in Crime No.838 of 2018 registered by the respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 294(b) and 307 of IPC.

¶15

The case of the prosecution as per the de-facto complainant is that due to previous enmity, the petitioner along with other accused assaulted the defacto complainant.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and she and her husband were falsely implicated in this case. [*]

¶17

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that due to previous enmity, the petitioner along with her husband assaulted the defacto complainant and that her husband assaulted the defacto complainant with knife. He would submit that the injured has been discharged from the hospital and that there is no previous case against the petitioner.

¶18

5 . Taking into consideration the facts of the case and the submissions made by the counsels, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

¶19

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

¶20

6 . Accordingly, the petitioner is are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on her appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur, on condition that the petitioner 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the said Magistrate, on further condition that:

¶21

[a] if the petitioner failed to surrender before the said Magistrate within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this Order shall stand automatically cancelled.

¶22

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30.a.m until further orders.

¶23

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

¶24

[e] 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].

¶25

[ f ] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

¶26

-sd/-

¶27

25/07/2018

¶28

This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned

¶29

TRUE COPY

¶30

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

¶31

[*] Deleted and the other portions of the said order, dated 25.07.2018 shall remain unaltered, as per order of this court dated 31/07/2018, made in Crl.OP.NO.18180 of 2018.

¶32

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

¶33

TO
1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
THIRUVOTTIYUR.
2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
TIRUVALLUR. [FOR INFORMATION]
3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
H8, THIRUVOTTIYUR POLICE STATION,
THIRUVOTTIYUR, CHENNAI - 19.
4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
+1CC to M/S.S.SATHISH KUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary
charges in SR.NO. 14219
CRL OP.18180/2018
Date :25/07/2018
MLT-27/07/2018
MLT-01/08/2018

¶34

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

M.Shamla, Aged 33 Years v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Shamla, Aged 33 Years v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prathap Naidu, Vs the State Rep by Its

Jaganathan, Aged 62 Years, Vs State Rep. by

E.Arunkumar, Aged 22 Years, Vs State by

Kathiravan, Aged 28 Years Vs State Rep. by

Vasanthamani, F/67 Years Vs State Rep by

Mohamed Nazeer, Aged 58 Years, Vs the State