Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a fire accident case under IPC and Explosives Act. Court granted bail, directing reporting and adherence to conditions to prevent tampering or absconding.
Petitioner granted anticipatory bail to be released on executing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, subject to daily reporting and other conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )
Monday, the Fifteenth day of April Two Thousand Nineteen
PRESENT
The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI
CRL OP(MD) No.4680 of 2019
S.PREM KUMAR ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN
THE STATE REP.BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVENGADAM POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. (CRIME NO. 36/2019) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT
For Petitioner : MR.G.THALAIMUTHARASU Advocate
For Respondent : MR.K.SUYAMBULINGA BHARATI, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)
PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences under Sections 286, 337, 338, 304(2) IPC and Section 9(b)(i)(a) of Explosives Act, 1884 in Cr.No.36 of 2019, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2.It is the case of the prosecution that the first accused is the owner of Sri Kunam Cracker Factory, in which the petitioner is an employee, wherein, there was a fire accident occurred. Due to which, 7 persons died and 14 persons were injured and subsequently, the first accused also passed away. Since the petitioner is a Manager of the said fire works, the Law Enforcing Agency has registered this case against the petitioner as well as the owner of the said company.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he has nothing to do with the alleged offence. The petitioner is an
2
employee of the first accused. However, he is escaped from the fire accident.
4.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) appearing for the respondent police did not dispute the facts disclosed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 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, Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District, on condition that the petitioner 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 the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:
(a)the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;
(b)the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m.,until further orders;
(c)the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;
(d)the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;
(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]; and;
(f)if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.
/ TRUE COPY /
Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
3
TO
1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SANKARANKOVIL, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.
2.DO THRO'THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.
3.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRUVENGADAM POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.
4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1 CC to M/s.G.THALAIMUTHARASU, Advocate ( SR-6880[I] dated 16/04/2019 )
ORDER
IN
CRL OP(MD) No.4680 of 2019 Date :15/04/2019
Myr
AE/PN/SAR-II/22.04.2019/3P/6C
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail given the nature of the alleged offence in a fire accident case where there was no specific allegation against him.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P.K.Shaji Vs. State of KeralaReferred¶24
P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560] · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 3 enactments
S.PREM KUMAR
THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVENGADAM POLICE STATION
M.DHANDAPANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
