Allowed

Illamalli Sagadevan v. State Represented by

Madras HC28 Aug 2020CRL OP/13167/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner apprehending arrest in a criminal case arising from a family dispute leading to injury. The court imposed specific conditions including appearance within 15 days, execution of bond with sureties, daily reporting, and non-tampering with evidence or witnesses.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was released on bail subject to conditions including appearance within fifteen days, bond execution with sureties, daily reporting to police at 10:30 a.m., and prohibition on tampering

Illamalli Sagadevan Vs State Represented by — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 28.08.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.13167 of 2020

¶6

Illamalli Sagadevan

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State represented by, The Inspector of Police (Crimes), D-1, Tiruttani Police Station, Tiruvallur District.

¶9

(Crime No.2354 of 2020)

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to grant anticipatory bail for the petitioner / accused in the even of his arrest in F.I.R. Crime No.2354 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr. S.Vijay Anand

¶13

For Respondent : Mr. M.Mohamed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor

¶14

O R D E R (The case has been heard through video conference)

¶15

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC, in Crime. No.2354 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶16

The case of the prosecution is that there was a family dispute between the petitioner and the de facto complainant and due to which there was a wordy quarrel between them and the de facto complainant got injured by a fire accident during the dispute. Hence, the complaint.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Therefore, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶18

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

¶19

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there was a family dispute between the petitioner and the de facto complainant and due to which, there was a wordy quarrel between them and the de facto complainant got injured by a fire accident during the dispute. He further submitted that there are no previous case against the petitioner. However, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶20

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that there is no previous case against the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶21

[a] Accordingly, the petitioner is 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, Tiruttani, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a 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:

¶22

[b] 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.

¶23

[c] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate 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 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 absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

TRUE COPY

¶32

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.)
High Court, Madras - 600 104.
TO
1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
TIRUTTANI.
2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE(CRIMES),
D-1, TIRUTTANI POLICE STATION,
TIRUVALLUR DISTRICT.
+2 CC to M/S. S.VIJAY ANAND Advocate on payment of necessary
charges SR.No.6075
CRL OP.13167/2020
Date :28/08/2020
cs 10/09/2020

¶33

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

Illamalli Sagadevan v. State Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Illamalli Sagadevan v. State Represented 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

Chinnaraj Vs the Inspector of Police

Manikandan Vs State Rep by