This judgment grants anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a theft case involving a stolen car battery, imposing conditions for reporting and non-tampering with evidence.
Petitioner released on bail on a bond for Rs.10,000/- with two sureties, subject to daily police 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 ) Tuesday, the Sixteenth day of April Two Thousand Nineteen PRESENT
The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI
CRL OP(MD) No.5757 of 2019
M.MARIA SUJI ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.2
STATE REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, V.K.PURAM POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. (CRIME NO.2/2019) ... RESPONDENT
For Petitioner : MR.H.ELANGO Advocate
For Respondent : MR.S.CHANDRASEKAR, Additional Public Prosecutor
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 offence punishable under Section 379 IPC, in Crime No.2 of 2019, seeks anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that, the car battery belongs to the defacto-complainant, the petitioner and other accused person committed stolen the battery. Hence, a case has been registered against him by the respondent-Police.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is no way connected in this case and the petitioner has not committed any offences as alleged by the prosecution.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would submit that the petitioner and the other accused persons were committed a theft of battery belonging to the defacto complainant, which was, recovered by the respondent police. He would further submit that there is no previous case as against the petitioner.
5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the stolen car battery was recovered, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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
2
learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram, 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 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 his 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 petitioners 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,
TO
CRL OP(MD) No.5757 of 2019
JM/MMS/SAR 4/23.04.2019/2P/6C
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner who apprehends arrest.
Whether the recovery of the stolen article is a relevant consideration in granting bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P.K.Shaji Vs. State of KeralaReferred¶22
P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560] · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
M. MARIA SUJI
STATE REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, V.K.PURAM POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.
M. DHANDAPANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
