Allowed

Arjun v. the State Rep by

Madras HC13 Oct 2020CRL OP/15916/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras granted bail to two petitioners accused of robbery under Section 395 IPC who were in judicial custody. The court imposed standard bail conditions including reporting to police and forbidding tampering with evidence or absconding.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail with bond of Rs.10,000/- and two sureties, subject to conditions of daily police reporting and non-absconding.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 13.10.2020

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

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

¶5

CRL.O.P.No.15916 of 2020

¶6

1.Arjun ... Petitioners/Accused 2.Pradeep Kumar

¶7

Vs. The State represented by: ... Respondent/Complainant The Inspector of Police, Pattabiram Police Station, Thiruvallur District. (Crime.No.654/2020)

¶8

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime No.654 of 2020 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, Pattabiram Police Station, Thiruvallur District.

¶9

For Petitioners : Mr.E.Parthiban For Respondent : Mr.T.Shunmugarajeswaran Government Advocate (Crl. Side) ORDER (The case has been heard through video conference)

¶10

The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 23.09.2020 for the offences punishable under Section 392 of IPC later altered to Section 395 of IPC, in Crime No.654 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶11

2 The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant Nomonkhan is that he along with his friends is engaged in the business of selling T.V., Cooker and Gas Stove. While so, on 22.09.2020, when they were returning after selling electronic items in Pattabiram, three persons who came in a two wheeler had waylaid them and by threatening them with knife, had robbed an amount of Rs.35,000/- from them. Based on the complaint the case was registered.

¶12

3 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Infact the defacto complainant is a person from Uttar Pradesh and he had sold duplicate electronic items and cheated the public in the petitioners' locality. Since, it was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ questioned by the people in the petitioners' locality, a false

¶13

complaint has been given against the accused persons as if, they have robbed an amount of Rs.35,000/- from him. He would submit that in fact the said amount of Rs.35,000/- is the refund given by the defacto complainant in respect of the duplicate electronic items sold by him. He would further submit that there is no previous case against the petitioners and that they have been suffering incarceration from 23.09.2020. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioners.

¶14

4 The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would vehemently oppose stating that the petitioners along with other accused had waylaid the defacto complainant who is an electronic items seller and robbed an amount of Rs.35,000/- from him. He would further submit that there is no previous case pending against the petitioners. However, the enquiry reveals that the defacto complainant had sold duplicate electronic items.

¶15

5 Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsels and also taking into consideration the period of incarceration suffered by the petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners subject to the following conditions:

¶16

(a) Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on condition that each petition 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 learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Tiruvallur, and on further conditions that:

¶17

(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;

¶18

(c) the petitioners shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m. until further orders.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

(h) if the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ registered under Section 229A IPC.

¶24

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

¶25

-sd/-

¶26

13/10/2020

¶27

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

¶28

TRUE COPY

¶29

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

¶30

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-II, TIRUVALLUR

¶31

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TIRUVALLUR. [FOR INFORMATION]

¶32

3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶33

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATTABIRAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT.

¶34

5 THE JAILER, SUB-JAIL, POONAMALLE.

¶35

6 THE SUPERINTENDEN PUZHAL, CHENNAI

¶36

+1 CC to M/S.E.PARTHIBAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.6863

CRL OP.15916/2020

Date :13/10/2020

TA-14/10/2020

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

Arjun v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun 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

V.Prabhu Vs State Rep by

K.Balakrishnadass @ Balaji Vs the State

Selvaraj Vs State Rep.by

Munisamy Vs State Rep by

Gopinath Vs State Rep by

S.Jayseelan Vs State Rep.