Allowed

Ravichandran v. State Rep by

Madras HC3 Sept 2020CRL OP/13560/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case involving alleged rowdyism and cheating. The bail was conditional on executing a bond with sureties, reporting to police for a fortnight, and not tampering with evidence or absconding.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions: execution of bond with sureties, reporting to police daily for 2 weeks and then weekly, and not tampering with evidence or absconding.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 03.09.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

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

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.13560 of 2020

¶6

Ravichandran ... Petitioner Vs. The State Represented by, ...Respondent The Inspector of Police, M-2, Milk Colony Police Station, Madhavaram, Chennai. Crime No.2670 of 2020.

¶7

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Connection with the Crime No.2670 of 2020 pending on the file of the respondent police.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Paranthaman

¶9

For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz,

¶10

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶11

ORDER

¶12

(This case has been heard through video conference)

¶13

The petitioner, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 387, 294(b), 506(ii) of IPC, in Crime No.2670 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶14

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and other accused persons abused the defacto complainant and demanded rowdy mamool of Rs.20,000/- from him. Hence, the complaint.

¶15

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

¶16

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. He would further submit that a false case has been foisted against him. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶17

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner belonging to the political party threatened the defacto complainant and demanded rowdy mamool of Rs.20,000/- from him. He would further submit that there is one previous case pending against the petitioner, under Section 75 of the City Police Act.

¶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 (15) days after lifting of lockdown or the commencement of the Court's normal functioning whichever is earlier, before the District Munsiff cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Madhavaram, Tiruvallur District, 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:

¶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 Police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter on every Monday 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 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ SCW 5560].

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

-sd/-

¶28

03/09/2020

¶29

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

¶30

TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104. TO 1 THE DISTRICT MUNSIFF CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MADHAVARAM, TIRUVALLUR DISTRICT. 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE THIRUVALLUR. [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS. 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, M-2, MILK COLONY POLICE STATION, MADHAVARM, CHENNAI.

¶31

+1 CC to M/S.N.PARANTHAMAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.28968

¶32

CRL OP.13560/2020 Date :03/09/2020 TA-15/09/2020

¶33

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

Ravichandran v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravichandran 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

N.Arun Kumar Vs State Represented by

M.K.Rajendran Vs Inspector of Police

S.Prabakaran Vs State Represented by

J.Arul Vs State Rep by

Thirumalai Vasan Vs State, Rep. by

Manimaran Vs State Rep. by