Allowed

Manikandan v. State Rep by

Madras HC28 Aug 2020CRL OP/13135/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras, in a Criminal Original Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., granted anticipatory bail to two petitioners facing arrest under Sections 294(b), 323, and 506(i) IPC. The court imposed standard conditions including security bonds, reporting to police, and non-tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners ordered to be released on bail if arrested, subject to executing a bond for Rs. 10,000 with sureties, reporting to police daily for two weeks, and not tampering with evidence or witnesses.

Manikandan Vs State Rep by — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 28.08.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

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

¶5

Crl.O.P.Nos.13135 of 2020

¶6

1.Manikandan

¶7

2.Paneerselvam ... Petitioners

¶8

Vs.

¶9

State represented by The Inspector of Police, Vaduvoor Police Station, Thiruvarur District. (Crime No.1188/2020) ... Respondent 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.1188/2020 pending on the file of the respondent police.

¶10

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

¶11

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences publishable under Sections 294(b), 323 & 506(i) IPC in Cr. No.1188 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶12

The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant is that due to previous enmity there was wordy quarrel between the petitioners and de facto complainant and the petitioners threatened and abused the de facto complainant with filthy language and assaulted him with spade due to which the de facto sustained minor injury. Hence, the complaint.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Therefore, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶14

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that due to property dispute, the petitioners abused the defacto complainant with filthy language and assaulted him with spade causing simple injury and the injured discharged from the hospital. He further submitted that there is one previous case against the petitioners. However, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ bail to the petitioners.

¶15

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

¶16

[a] Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered 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 Court I, Mannargudi, Thiruvarur District, 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:

¶17

[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.

¶18

[c] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate 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 himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

-sd/-

¶25

28/08/2020

¶26

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

¶27

TRUE COPY

¶28

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ High Court, Madras - 600 104.

¶29

¶30

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.I, MANNARGUDI, THIRUVARUR DISTRICT. 2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS. 3 INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADUVOOR POICE STATION, THIRUVARUR DISTRICT. CC to M/S. SWAMISUBRAMANIAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.13135/2020 Date :28/08/2020 RVR 22/09/2020

¶31

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

Manikandan v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manikandan 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

Karthik Vs the State Rep by

Manivannan @ Padai Mani Vs State Rep.by

Romex Vs the State Rep.by

R.Ranjithkumar Vs the Inspector of Police

Illamalli Sagadevan Vs State Represented by

Chinnaraj Vs the Inspector of Police