Partly allowed

Indra v. State, Rep. by

Madras HC26 Aug 2020CRL OP/12526/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an anticipatory bail petition for the first petitioner due to five prior cases. It granted conditional anticipatory bail to the second and third petitioners, who had no prior cases, subject to strict reporting, bond, and conduct conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to second and third petitioners on conditions including execution of bond, daily police reporting, and non-tampering with evidence. Petition dismissed for first petitioner.

Indra Vs State, Rep. by — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 26.08.2020

¶3

CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTIC E A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Crl.O.P.No. 12526 of 2020
1.Indra ... Petitioners
2.Ambika
3.Vinoth @ Vinothkumar
Vs.
The State represented by, ... Respondent
The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Thirukazhukundram Police Station,
Kancheepuram District.
(Crime No.877 of 2020)
Prayer : Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in
connection with Cr. No.877 of 2020 on the file of the respondent
Police.
For Petitioners : Mr. R.Sasikumar
For Respondent : Mr. M.Mohamed Riyaz
Additional Public Prosecutor

¶4

ORDER

¶5

(The case has been heard through video conference)

¶6

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences publishable under Sections 294(b) & 324 IPC r/w. Section 4 of Women Harassment Act in Cr. No.877 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶7

The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant namely Alamelu is that the petitioners along with others assaulted the defacto complainant with iron rod on her shoulder due to which, she sustained injury. Hence, the complaint.

¶8

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

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and due to previous enmity, a false complaint has been foisted against them. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶10

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that due to previous enmity, there was wordy quarrel between the petitioners and the de facto complainant due to which, the petitioners assaulted the de facto complainant with iron road resulting in her sustaining injury. He would submit that the injured has been discharged from the hospital. However, there are five previous cases as against the first petitioner and there is no previous case as against the 2^nd and 3^rd petitioners. Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶11

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and since there are five previous cases as against the first petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the first petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed insofar as the first petitioner is concerned.

¶12

However, considering the fact that the injured has been discharged from the hospital and there are no previous cases as against the second and third petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the second and third petitioners subject to the following conditions.

¶13

[a] Accordingly, the second and third petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of lifting of lockdown or the commencement or Court's normal functioning whichever is earlier, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirukazhukundram, 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:

¶14

[b] 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.

¶15

[c] the petitioners 2 and 3 shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders.

¶16

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

¶17

[e] the petitioners shall not abscond either during https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ investigation or trial.

¶18

[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner/s in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner/s 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].

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

-sd/-
26/08/2020
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 JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
THIRUKAZHUKUNDRAM.
2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
CHENGALPATTU. [FOR INFORMATION]
3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
4 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
THIRUKAZHUKUNDRAM POLICE STATION,
KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT.
CC to M/S. R.SASIKUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary
charges
CRL OP.12526/2020
Date :26/08/2020
TA-21/09/2020

¶22

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

Indra v. State, Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indra 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

D.Wilson Vs State of Tamil Nadu

D.Hemakumar Vs State Rep.by

A.Ismail Vs the State Represented by

R.Veeramani Vs State Rep by.

Yamini Preetha Vs State Rep by

Muthuraj Vs State Rep by