Allowed

K.Jayaraman v. the State Rep. by

Madras HC20 Nov 2020CRL OP/17278/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an order granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for offences under various IPC sections and TNPPDL Act. The court imposed specific conditions including posting a bond, daily reporting, and prohibitions on tampering with evidence or absconding.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail conditioned on posting a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, daily reporting, and adherence to restrictions on tampering and absconding.

K.Jayaraman Vs the State Rep. by — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 20.11.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

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

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.17278 of 2020

¶6

...Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State Rep by The Inspector of Police, Karmandhurai Police Station, Salem District. (Crime No.181 of 2020) ...Respondent

¶9

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest by the respondent police in Crime No.181 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Manimaaran

¶11

For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz

¶12

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶13

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

¶14

The petitioner who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294B, 447, 448, 506(2) of IPC read with Section 3 TNPPDL Act, in Crime No.181 of 2020, seek anticipatory bail.

¶15

The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant Devaraj is that due to money dispute, the petitioner along with other accused trespassed into the property of the defacto complainant with deadly weapons, damaged the household articles and abused him and others in filthy language and also threatened with dire consequences.

¶16

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

¶17

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that due to money dispute, the petitioner along with other accused trespassed into the property of the defacto complainant with deadly weapons, damaged the household articles, abused him and others in filthy language and also threatened with dire consequences. He would further submit that there is no previous case against the petitioner. However, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶18

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

¶19

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned Counsels and the fact that there is no previous case against the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶20

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of 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-II, Aathur, Salem District, 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:

¶21

[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.

¶22

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

[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].

¶26

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

¶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.)

¶30

High Court, Madras - 600 104.

¶31

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

¶32

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.II, AATHUR, SALEM DISTRICT. 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SALEM(FOR INFORMATION) 3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS. 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARMANDHURAI Police Station, SALEM DISTRICT, CC to M/S. ADV.K.MANIMAARAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges Sr.7718 CRL OP.17278/2020 Date :20/11/2020 RVR 07/12/2020

¶33

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

K.Jayaraman v. the State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Jayaraman 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

Sathish Vs State Rep by

Anbu Rani Vs State Rep. by

Easwari @ Esu @ Logeshwari Vs State by

M.Srinivasan Vs the State Rep.by

Murugan Vs State Rep by

Arivy @ Aravindan Vs State Rep by