Allowed

B.v.Nirmal v. the State Rep by

Madras HC24 Aug 2020CRL OP/12018/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner apprehending arrest for offences of intimidation, cheating, and public nuisance. Bail was subject to strict conditions including daily reporting and surrendering within 15 days post-lockdown.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be released on bail if arrested upon execution of a bond with sureties and adherence to daily reporting conditions.

B.v.Nirmal Vs the State Rep by — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 24.08.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶5

Crl.OP.No.12018 of 2020

B.V. Nirmal

... Petitioner

Vs.

The State represented by The Inspector of police, S-11, Tambaram police station, Chennai.

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.1545 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mrs.S. Valarmathi

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R (This case has been heard through video conference)

¶14

The petitioner who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences publishable under Sections 341, 384, 294(b), 506(i) of IPC, in Crime No.1545 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶15

The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant is that he was travelling from East Tambaram to Guindy by his car and while he stopped at MEPZ signal, the complainant's car was intercepted by the petitioner along with three other accused and they got into the car and forced him to travel towards Guindy and later the accused refrained the defacto complainant to use the mobile phone and also threatened the defacto complainant. Hence the complaint.

¶16

The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would submit that on a complaint given by the petitioner the respondent has registered a case in CSR No. 307 of 2011 against the defacto complainant. As a counter blast the present complainant has been given. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner.

¶17

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner way laid the defacto complainant while he was travelling in a car and threatened him. He would further submit that there was a money dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. However, he opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶18

Taking into consideration the facts and submissions of the learned Counsel, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions;

¶19

Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days after lifting of lockdown or the commencement of the Court's normal functioning whichever is earlier, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram on condition that the petitioner shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two surety, 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 daily 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 abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.)
High Court, Madras - 600 104.
TO
1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
TAMBARAM
2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
EGMORE ,CHENNAI [FOR INFORMATION]
3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
S11 TAMBARAM POLICE STATION,
CHENNAI.
+1 CC to M/S.VALARMATHI Advocate on payment of necessary
charges SR.NO. 6017
CRL OP.12018/2020
Date :24/08/2020
GKS:31/08/2020

¶31

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

B.v.Nirmal v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.v.Nirmal 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

Sivanesan Vs State Rep. by

Mayavel Vs State Rep. by Inspector of Police

N.Sasikumar Vs the State Rep.by

Suresh Vs State Rep.by

S.Senguttuvan Vs State Rep by

Ayyavu Vs State Represented by