Allowed

Manikandan v. the State Rep by

Madras HC8 Sept 2020CRL OP/13615/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners facing charges of theft and snatching. The court imposed strict conditions including daily police reporting, execution of a remuneration bond, and prohibitions on tampering with evidence or absconding.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners ordered to be released on bail in event of arrest subject to execution of bond and daily reporting.

Manikandan Vs the State Rep by — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 08.09.2020

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.13615 of 2020
1. Manikandan ... Petitioners
2. Karthikeyan
3. Thangaraj
Vs.
The State Rep by its ...Respondent
The Station House Officer,
MS Ennore Police Station,
Chennai.
(Crime No.3785 of 2020)
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 438 of
Criminal Procedure Code to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the
event of their arrest in Crime No. 3785 of 2020 on the file of the
respondent police.
For Petitioner : Mr.T. Arun Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(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 Section 379 of I.P.C., in Crime No.3785 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶7

The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant is that the petitioners along with other accused person were found in drunken mood and A1 in this case had snatched the mobile phone from the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint.

¶8

The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He would submit that the A1 was arrested and later enlarged on bail. He would further submit that there is no previous case as against the petitioners. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶9

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

¶10

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners were found in drunken mood and A1 in this case was snatched the mobile phone from the defacto complainant. He would submit that the A1 was arrested and later enlarged on bail. He would further submitted that there is no previous case pending as against the petitioners. However, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶11

Taking into consideration the facts and submissions of the learned Counsel and the fact that the petitioners has no previous case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to the following conditions;

¶12

Accordingly, the 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 on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur, on condition that each of 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:

¶13

[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.

¶14

[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent Police every day at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

[e] 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].

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

-sd/08/09/2020

¶22

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

¶23

TRUE COPY
Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.)
High Court, Madras - 600 104.
TO
1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
THIRUVOTTIYUR.
2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
THIRUVALLUR. [FOR INFORMATION]
3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
4 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
M-5, ENNORE POLICE STATION,
CHENNAI.
CC to M/S. T.ARUN KUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary
charges
CRL OP.13615/2020
Date :08/09/2020
TA-30/09/2020

¶24

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

Manikandan v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manikandan v. the 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

Ravi Vs State by

Udhayakumar Vs State Rep. by

V.G.Dhanasekar Vs State Rep.by

Sivachanthiran Vs the State Rep.by

Kulanthaivelu Vs State Rep. by

Kanniyappan Vs State Rep. by