Allowed

Aravinth v. the State Rep by

Madras HC5 Oct 2020CRL OP/15667/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras granted bail to contract labourers charged with assaulting police personnel and causing grievous injuries. The court considered the 15 days of incarceration and the victim's discharge, imposing travel and surety conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners ordered released on bail on Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties, subject to conditions including daily reporting and prohibition on absconding or tampering.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 05.10.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

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

¶5

Crl.O.P.No. 15667 of 2020

¶6

Aravinth

¶7

Sudhakar ... Petitioners

¶8

Vs. The State rep by The Inspector of Police, Esplanade Police Station, Chennai, Chennai District. (Crime No.849 of 2020) ... Respondent

¶9

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime No.849 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police.

¶10

For Petitioners : Mr. D. Arun

¶11

For Respondent : Mr.T.Shunmugarajeswaran Government Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R (The case has been heard through video conference)

¶12

The petitioners who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 21.09.2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 333 and 506(ii) of IPC, in Crime No.849 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶13

The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant who is the staff in the Corporation is that the petitioners are the contract labourers in the Chennai Corporation and that they had in an inebriated condition prevented the defacto complainant and police officers from performing their duties and also assaulted and caused grievous injuries to them. Hence, the complaint.

¶14

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and due to a dispute a false complaint has been given against the petitioners. He would submit that the petitioners were arrested on 21.09.2020 and that they are in custody for the past 15 days. He further submitted that the injured has been discharged from the hospital and hence he prays to grant bail to the petitioners.

¶15

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

¶16

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioners were contract labourers assaulted the defacto complainant and his colleagues who were working in the corporation and thereby caused grievous injuries to them. He would further submit that the injured has been discharged from the hospital. Hence he opposed for grant of bail to the petitioners.

¶17

Taking into consideration the facts and submissions made by the learned counsels and considering the period of incarceration by the petitioners from 21.09.2020, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners subject to the following conditions:

¶18

(a) Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on condition to 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 learned Metropolitan Magistrate-V, Egmore, Chennai, and on further conditions that:

¶19

(b) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar Card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity;

¶20

(c) the petitioners shall stay at Perambalur and report before the Perambalur Town Police Station daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks and thereafter, report before the respondent daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when requirred for interrogation.

¶21

(d) the petitioners shall not commit any offences of similar nature;

¶22

(e) the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

¶23

(f) the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

¶24

(g) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial 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 petitioner 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];

¶25

(h) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

-sd/-

¶29

05/10/2020 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned

¶30

TRUE COPY

¶31

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104. TO

¶32

1 THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE NO.V, EGMORE, CHENNAI

¶33

2 THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, EGMORE, CHENNAI(FOR INFORMATION)

¶34

3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶35

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EXPLANADE POLICE STATION, CHENNAI.

¶36

5 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, PUZHAL, CHENNAI

¶37

6 THE OFFICER INCHARGE, PERAMBALUR TOWN POLICE STATION, PERAMBALUR.

¶38

CC to M/S.D.ARUN Advocate on payment of necessary charges

CRL OP.15667/2020

Date :05/10/2020

RVR 06/10/2020

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

Aravinth v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aravinth 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

Ramakrishnan Vs State Represented by

S.Anbarasan Vs State Rep.by

Saravanan Vs the Inspector of Police

Murugan Vs the State Rep.by

Archana Padmakumar Vs the State, Represented by

Balasubramaniyam Vs State Rep