Allowed

Mani v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC19 Mar 2018CRL OP(MD)/4304/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner accused of theft of four goats, imposing conditions including surrender within 15 days, reporting to police, and non-tampering with evidence, citing P.K.Shaji.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with bond of Rs.25,000 and two sureties, subject to conditions of reporting, non-tampering, and surrender.

Mani Vs the Inspector of Police — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

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

¶2

Monday, the Nineteenth day of March Two Thousand and Eighteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.PONGIAPPAN

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.4304 of 2018

¶6

MANI

¶7

THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUCHULI POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT, CRIME NO.52/2018.

¶8

... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT

¶9

For Petitioner : M/S.B.ANANDAN Advocate

¶10

For Respondent : Mr.A.ROBINSON, 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/Accused No.2, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC, in Crime No.52 of 2018, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶14

The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is a shepherd. On 01.03.2018, at midnight, the defacto complainant found that out of 95 goats, 4 goats were missing in his farm. He went in search of the missed goats and he did not able to find the same. Hence, he lodged a complaint before the respondent police. Hence, the case has been registered for the above said crime.

¶15

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays for anticipatory bail for the petitioner.

¶16

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the State submitted that the stolen property was recovered by the respondent police and the investigation is still pending. He https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ further submitted that the petitioner has no previous case.

¶17

The submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for either side are considered. It is alleged that during the time of occurrence, the petitioner and other accused in this case committed theft of 4 goats. As of now, the stolen property was recovered through the co-accused. Further, based on the confession given by the co-accused, the petitioner was implicated in this case. So, considering the nature of offence committed by the petitioner, custodial interrogation may not be necessary for completing the investigation. Hence, 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.I, Aruppukkottai, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five 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:

¶18

(i) the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m., for a period of three weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;

¶19

(ii)the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

¶20

(iii)the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

¶21

(iv)on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner shall stand automatically cancelled and 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].

¶22

/ TRUE COPY /

¶23

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

¶24

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

¶25

TO
1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.1, ARUPPUKKOTTAI, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.
2 DO THOUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VIRUDHUNAGAR AT SRIVILLIPUTHUR.
3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUCHULI POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.
4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1. CC to M/S.B.ANANDAN Advocate SR.No.4309.
ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.4304 of 2018 Date :19/03/2018
SDS/PN/SAR.4/21.03.2018/3P/6C

¶26

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

Mani v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mani 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

S.Marimuthu, Vs the Inspector of Police

Thirunavukarasu, Vs the Inspector of Police

`Tamilselvan, Vs the Sub-Inspector of Police

Soundararajan Vs the Inspector of Police

Gopal Vs the Inspector of Police

A.Nazeer Vs the Inspector of Police