Allowed

Regu, v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC23 Jan 2019CRL OP(MD)/894/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner apprehending arrest under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case involving alleged offences under IPC 341, 294(b), 323, and 295(A). Conditions for grant included surrender within 15 days and reporting to police.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail ordered to be released on execution of bond with two sureties on conditions of surrender within 15 days, reporting for interrogation, and not tampering with eviden

Regu, Vs the Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

Wednesday, the Twenty Third day of January Two Thousand Nineteen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

CRL OP(MD) No.894 of 2019

¶7

REGU,

¶8

... PETITIONER / ACCUSED (RANK NOT KNOWN)

¶9

¶10

STATE: THOUGH

¶11

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELLICHANTHAI POLICE STATION, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT. (CRIME NO.05/2019)

¶12

... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT

¶13

For Petitioner : MR.KA.RAAMAKRISHINAN Advocate

¶14

For Respondent : MR.K.SUYAMBULINGA BHARATHI, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶17

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 295(A), 506(ii) of IPC in Cr.No. 5 of 2019 seeks anticipatory bail.

¶18

2 . The case of the prosecution is that on 13.01.2019 at about 05.30 p.m when the defacto complainant was walking on the road, the petitioner along with some other persons came and quarrelled by saying that they should not enter into their village for preaching christianity and also forcibly made Hindu marks on their foreheads.

¶19

3 . The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he has nothing to do with the alleged offence. He would further submit that the injured has also been discharged from the hospital.

¶20

4 . The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) would submit that the petitioner along with some other persons came and quarrelled by saying that they should not enter into their village for preaching christianity and also forcibly made Hindu marks on their foreheads https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

Taking into consideration the facts of the case and the

¶22

¶23

submissions by learned counsels,this Court inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶24

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Eraniel, Kanyakumari District on condition that the petitioners 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 said Magistrate, on further condition that:

¶25

[a] if the petitioner fail to surrender before the said Magistrate within a period of fifteen days, this Order shall stand automatically cancelled.

¶26

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation

¶27

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

¶28

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

¶29

[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].

¶30

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

¶31

/ TRUE COPY /

¶32

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

¶33

¶34

1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, ERANIEL, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.

¶35

2.DO THRO'THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT AT NAGERCOIL

¶36

3.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ VELLICHANTHAI POLICE STATION, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.

¶37

¶38

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

¶39

+1. CC to MR.KA.RAAMAKRISHINAN Advocate SR.No.1340

¶40

CRL OP(MD) No.894 of 2019

¶41

aav AE/VR/SAR2/24.01.2019/3P/6C

¶42

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

Regu, v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Regu, 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

M/S.Clear Aqua Technologies Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

K. Hari Ram, S/O.Karunai Vs the Inspector of Police

S. Ramar Vs the Inspector of Police

Palani @ Nachipalani, Vs the Inspector of Police

Selvamani, Vs the Inspector of Police

The General Manager, Vs the Presiding Officer