Allowed

R.Subramani v. State Rep by

Madras HC15 Oct 2020CRL OP/16429/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a criminal case alleging offences under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 506(ii) of IPC, imposing strict conditions including appearance before the Magistrate and daily reporting to police.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to execution of bond, appearance before Judicial Magistrate within 15 days, daily reporting to police for 2 weeks, and other standard conditions.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 15.10.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.16429 of 2020

¶6

R.SUBRAMANI .. Petitioner/1^st Accused

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State rep by,

¶9

The Inspector of Police, Mathur Police Station, Krishnagiri District. Crime No.1047 of 2020

¶10

.. Respondent/Complainant

¶11

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.1047 of 2020 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Punniakoti

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

(The case has been heard through video conference)

¶16

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 506(ii) of IPC, in Crime No.1047 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶17

2 The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant viz., Velu is that the accused is his brother and that there was a property dispute between them. Whileso, on 09.09.2020, the accused persons had tried to dig a borewell in the disputed land and when the same was questioned by the defacto complainant, the accused persons have attacked him with hands and thereby, he has sustained injures. Hence, the complaint.

¶18

3 The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶19

4 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the injured has been discharged from the hospital. He further submitted that there is no previous case pending against the petitioner. However, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

5 Taking into consideration the facts and submissions of the learned Counsel and the fact that the victim has been discharged from the hospital, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions;

¶21

6 Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail in the event of his arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pochampalli, on condition that the petitioner 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:

¶22

[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.

¶23

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police every day at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter every Monday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

[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 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].

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

-sd/-

¶30

15/10/2020

¶31

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

¶32

TRUE COPY

¶33

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶34

TO
1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
POCHAMPALLI
2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
KRISHNAGIRI(FOR INFORMATION)
3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MATHUR POLICE STATION,
KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT
CC to M/S. G.PUNNIAKOTI Advocate on payment of necessary
charges Sr.6974
CRL OP.16429/2020
Date :15/10/2020
RVR 21/10/2020

¶35

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

R.Subramani v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Subramani 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

D.Martin @ Devaraj Vs State Rep by

P.Srinivasan Vs the State Rep.by

K.R.Subramaniyan Vs the State Rep. by

Selvam Vs State by

Raja@Andiyarpalayam Raja Vs State Rep by

C.Manikandan Vs State Rep by