Allowed

Premkumar v. State Rep. by

Madras HC14 Sept 2020CRL OP/14210/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted anticipatory bail to three petitioners apprehending arrest in a case involving rash and reckless driving. Bail was granted subject to strict conditions including daily police reporting and personal sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petition for anticipatory bail allowed with conditions of personal bond, two sureties, daily police reporting for one week, and restrictions on absconding or tampering.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 14.09.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

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

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.14210 of 2020

¶6

Premkumar

¶7

Anbu Malar

¶8

Murugesan

¶9

... Petitioner/Accused 2 to 4
Vs.
The State represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
Ulundurpet Police Station,
Villupuram District.
Crime No.2358/2020. ... Respondent/Complainant

¶10

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to enlarge the petitioners herein on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in connection with Crime No. 2358 of 2020, pending on the file of the respondent police.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Ravichander For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor

¶12

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

¶13

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 324, 427 and 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.2358 of 2020,on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶14

The case of the prosecution is that there was a property dispute between the petitioners and the defacto complainant and on 29.08.2020, at 09.30 p.m., the petitioners attacked the defacto complainant and his wife and abused them in filthy language and intimidated and assaulted them.As a result of the same, the

¶15

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

¶16

defacto complainant sustained injuries on his shoulder. Hence the complaint.

¶17

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶18

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioners have abused and assaulted the defacto complainant and his wife. Due to which, the defacto complainant has sustained injuries and he was admitted in the hospital. He further submitted that he has been discharged from the hospital and the petitioners have no previous case pending against them. However, he oppose to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶19

Taking into consideration the facts and submissions of the learned counsel and the fact that the victim has been discharged from the hospital and there is no previous case pending against the petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to the following conditions;

¶20

Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail in the event of their 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 No.I, Ulundurpet , 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:

¶21

[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.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

[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].

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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, NO.I,ULUNDURPET 2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ULUNDURPET POLICE STATION, VILLUPURAM DISTRICT +1 CC to M/S. D.RAVICHANDER Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.6285

¶30

CRL OP.14210/2020 Date :14/09/2020 GKS:18/09/2020

¶31

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

Premkumar v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Premkumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Raj Vs State Represented by

A.Palanisamy Vs State Rep.by

D.Kumar Vs State Rep by

Vignesh Vs the State Rep by

Radhakrishnan Vs State Rep. by

Senthilkumar@Senthil Vs State Rep by