Allowed

Prabhakaran v. State Rep by

Madras HC14 Aug 2020CRL OP/12267/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras granted anticipatory bail to two petitioners apprehending arrest in a police complaint involving abuse, quarrel, and assault. Bail was granted subject to specific conditions including appearance before a Magistrate and police reporting schedules.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to be released on bail subject to executing a bond with sureties, daily reporting to police for 2 weeks, and other standard conditions including prohibition of absconding and tamp

Prabhakaran Vs State Rep by — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 14.08.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

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

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.12267 of 2020

¶6

Prabakaran

¶7

Kalaiarasi ... Petitioners

¶8

Vs. The State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, Peralam Police Station, Tiruvarur District. Crime No.1926 of 2020. ... Respondent

¶9

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of arrest in Connection with the Crime No.1926 of 2020 pending on the file of the respondent police.

¶10

For Petitioners : Mr. T. Muruganantham For Respondent : Mr. K. Prabakar, Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶11

ORDER

¶12

(This case has been heard through video conference)

¶13

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(2) of IPC in Crime No.1926 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶14

The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant is that the petitioners have abused and picked up quarrel with the defacto complainant on suspicion that the defacto complainant had stolen their household properties and also assaulted him and thereby the defacto complainant sustained injuries. Hence, the complaint.

¶15

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

¶16

The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the injured has been discharged from the hospital and that they are no way connected in this case. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶17

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners have abused and picked up quarrel with the defacto complainant on suspicion that the defacto complainant had stolen their household properties and also assaulted him due to which, the defacto complainant sustained injuries. He further submitted that the injured has been discharged from the hospital and that there is no previous case pending against these petitioners. However, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶18

Taking into consideration the facts and submissions of the learned Counsel and the fact that the injured has been discharge from the hospital, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to the following conditions;

¶19

Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days after lifting of lockdown or the commencement of the Court's normal functioning whichever is earlier, before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Nannilam , on condition that the petitioners 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:

¶20

[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.

¶21

[b] the first petitioner shall report before the respondent Police every day 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 second petitioner shall report before the respondent police every day at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks until further orders.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

[f] 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 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].

¶27

[g] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC. 8.With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is ordered. -sd/14/08/2020 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104. TO 1 THE DISTRICT MUNSIF CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NANNILAM. 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE THIRUVARUR [FOR INFORMATION]

¶28

3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS. 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERALAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVARUR DISTRICT.

¶29

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

¶30

CRL OP.12267/2020 Date :14/08/2020 MK:28/08/2020

¶31

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

Prabhakaran v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhakaran v. 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

Saran Raj Vs the State Rep. by

Ravi Kumar Vs the State Rep by

C.Chinnakannu Vs State Rep by

Arun Abraham Vs the State

Mohan Vs the State Rep. by

K.T.Sakthivel Vs the State by the Inspector of Police