Allowed

Prakash @ Venkatesan v. State by

Madras HC24 Jul 2020CRL OP/10999/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras granted anticipatory bail to five petitioners involved in a land dispute case under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) IPC. The court imposed conditions including reporting to police, executing a bond, and prohibiting tampering with evidence or absconding, citing P.K.Shaji.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to be released on bail in event of arrest subject to executing bond, reporting to police, and adhering to specific conduct conditions.

Prakash @ Venkatesan Vs State by — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 24.07.2020

¶3

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

¶4

Crl.O.P.No.10999 of 2020

¶5

1.Prakash @ Venkatesn ... Petitioners/Accused
2.Sekar
3.Madhaiyan
4.Vijay
5.Dasarathan

¶6

Vs.
The State represented by, ... Respondent/Complainant
The Inspector of Police,
Maharajakadi Police Station,
Krishnagiri District.
(Crime No. 433 of 2020)

¶7

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No. 433 of 2020, pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.

¶8

For Petitioners: Mr.M.Jayachandran

¶9

For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz

¶10

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶11

ORDER (The case has been heard through video conference)

¶12

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.433 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶13

2 The case of the prosecution is that due to the land dispute between the petitioners and the defaco complainant's family, on 12.07.2020 at about 08.00 a.m., the petitioners have picked up https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ wordy quarrel and at that time they have abused and assaulted the

¶14

defacto complainant with wooden stick and hands and thereby the defacto complainant sustained grievous injuries. Hence, the complaint.

¶15

3 The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there is a case in counter in Crime No.434 of 2020 and that a false case has been foisted against them. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶16

4 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the injured has been discharged from the hospital. He further submitted that there are no previous cases pending against the petitioners. However, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶17

5 Taking into consideration the facts and submissions of the learned Counsel and the fact that the victim has been discharged from the hospital and also that there is a case in counter, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to the following conditions;

¶18

6 Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within 15 days after lifting of lockdown or commencement of Court's normal functioning whichever is earlier, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Krishnagiri, on condition that the each petitioner shall execute a separate 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:

¶19

[a] the petitioners 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.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

[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 petitioners released on bail by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble

¶24

Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

-sd/24/07/2020

¶28

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

¶29

TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104. TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II, KRISHNAGIRI. 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE KRISHNAGIRI. [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶30

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MAHARAJAKADI POLICE STATION, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT.

¶31

CC to M/S.M.JAYACHANDRAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges

¶32

CRL OP.10999/2020 Date :24/07/2020 TA-11/09/2020

¶33

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

Prakash @ Venkatesan v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash @ Venkatesan v. State 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

Ravi Kumar Vs the State

D.Senthil Vs the State Rep.by

S.Jegadeeshkumar Vs State by

Tirupathi Vs State Represented by

Senthilkumar Vs State Represented by

Tamilarasan Vs State Represented by