Allowed

Mohan @ Kutty Mohan v. the State Rep by

Madras HC4 Nov 2020CRL OP/17262/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case involving offences under Sections 294(b), 323, and 506 of IPC, subject to specified conditions including reporting to police and executing a bond. The court noted the injured party had been discharged.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail on ₹10,000 bond with two sureties, required to report to police daily for two weeks then weekly, and prohibited from tampering with evidence or absconding.

Mohan @ Kutty Mohan Vs the State Rep by — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 04.11.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

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

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.17262 of 2020

Mohan @ Kutty Mohan

... Petitioner

Vs.

The State Represented by,

¶10

The Inspector of Police,

¶11

M-3 Puzhal Police Station,

¶12

Chennai.

¶13

(Cr.No.2769 of 2020) ... Respondent

¶14

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Connection with the Crime No.2769 of 2020 pending on the file of the respondent police.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.M. Gouthaman

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER

¶18

(This case has been heard through video conference)

¶19

The petitioner who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 323, and 506 (i) of IPC, in Crime No.2769 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶20

The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant one Sivakumar is that due to political enmity, the petitioner abused the defacto complainant with filthy language and also attacked the defacto complainant, as a result of which he sustained injuries. Hence, the complaint.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶22

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the injured has been discharged from the hospital. He would further submit that there are no previous cases pending against the petitioner. However, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶23

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

¶24

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the copy of the order is made ready, before the Judicial Magistrate, Madhavaram, Chennai on condition that the petitioner 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 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:

¶25

[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.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

[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].

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

-sd/-
04/11/2020
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,
MADHAVARAM, CHENNAI.
2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
CHENGALPET [FOR INFORMATION]
3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
M3 PUZHAL POLICE STATION,
CHENNAI
+1CC to M/S. M.GOUTHAMAN Advocate on payment of necessary
charges SR NO.7283
CRL OP.17262/2020
Date :04/11/2020
MK:09/11/2020

¶34

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

Mohan @ Kutty Mohan v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan @ Kutty Mohan 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

Sridevi Vs State

A.Shanmugam, Sole Accused Vs the State Rep.by

Jeeva Vs State Rep.by

Saravanan Vs the State Rep by

P.Muthulingam Vs the State Rep by

Santhosh Vs State Rep.by