Allowed

D.Senthil v. the State Rep.by

Madras HC23 Jul 2020CRL OP/10950/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner apprehending arrest under sections 294(b), 324, and 506 IPC. Bail was granted subject to strict conditions, including police reporting, execution of a bond, and prohibitions against tampering or absconding.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted bail to appear before the Judicial Magistrate within 15 days, subject to bond execution, periodic reporting, and conditions against evidence tampering or absconding.

D.Senthil Vs the State Rep.by — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 23.07.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTIC E A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.10950 of 2020

D.Senthil

... Petitioner

Vs.

State Represented by The Inspector of Police, G-4, Cheyyur Police Station, Cheyyur Taluk, Chengalpet District. Cr. No.1005 of 2020 ... Respondent

¶10

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., praying to grant bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.1005 of 2020 registered by the Inspector of Police, G-4 Cheyyur Police Station, Cheyyur Taluk, Chengalpattu District, pending investigation on the file of the respondent.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Muthurasu

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohammed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor

¶13

(The case has been heard through video conference)

¶14

The Petitioner who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) IPC in Crime No.1005 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶15

The case of the prosecution is that due to property dispute, there was a wody quarrel between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. At that time, the petitioner abused and attacked the defacto complainant's husband and also threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, the complaint.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the defacto complainant is none other than the sister in law and the alleged victim is brother of the petitioner. Due to property dispute, a false complaint has been foisted against the petitioner. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶17

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted due to property dispute, the petitioner abused and attacked his own brother and his sister in law/defacto complainant. He would further submit that the injured has been discharged from the hospital. However, he https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶18

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also of the fact that the injured has been discharged from the hospital, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶19

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest by the respondent police or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days after lifting of lockdowm or the commencement of Court's normal functioning whichever is earlier, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Maduranthakam, 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, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

¶20

[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.

¶21

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter every monday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.

¶22

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

¶23

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond 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 absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

¶26

8.With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is ordered.

¶27

-sd/-

¶28

23/07/2020

¶29

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

¶30

TRUE COPY

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

¶34

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURANTHAKAM

¶35

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, G-4 CHEYYUR POLICE STATION, CHEYYUR TALUK, CHENGALPATTU DISTRICT. CC to M/S. G.MUTHARASU Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.10950/2020 Date :23/07/2020 RVR 16/09/2020

¶36

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

D.Senthil v. the State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Senthil v. the State Rep.by

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

Palani Vs State Rep.by

E.Mohanraj Vs State Rep by

Ramamoorthy Vs the State by

Ravi Kumar Vs the State

S.Jegadeeshkumar Vs State by

Rajavel Vs the State Rep.by