Allowed

Saravanan v. the State Rep by

Madras HC4 Nov 2020CRL OP/17302/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to prevent arrest in a case involving assault, grievous hurt, and culpable homicide attempts. Conditions included bail bond execution, daily reporting, and restrictions on tampering or absconding.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail conditioned on executing a bond with sureties, daily reporting to police, and compliance with investigation requirements.

Saravanan Vs the State Rep by — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 04.11.2020

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶4

Crl.O.P.No.17302 of 2020

¶5

Saravanan

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The State represented by

¶8

The Inspector of Police J-3 Guindy Police Station,

¶9

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in the event of his arrest, concerned in Crime No.665 of 2020 on the file of the Respondent police.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ramasamy For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor

¶11

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

¶12

The petitioner, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 324, 307, 506(ii) of IPC, in Crime No.665 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶13

The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant viz., Mohan is that due to previous enmity, the petitioner along with other accused abused the defacto complainant with filthy language and assaulted him and his friend with knife as a result of which, the defacto complainant sustained injuries on his shoulder and his friend suffered injuries on his head. Hence, the complaint.

¶14

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

¶15

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 A1 & A2 were arrested and enlarged on bail. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶16

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner along with other accused have attacked the defacto complainant and caused injuries. He would further submit that the petitioner has one previous case in connection with the Crime of the year 2017 for the offence under Section 379 of IPC. Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶17

Considering the facts of this case and the submissions made by the counsels and the fact that, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶18

a) 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 IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties, 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:

¶19

[b] 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.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned 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].

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

-sd/-

¶28

04/11/2020

¶29

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

¶30

TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104. TO 1 THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE NO.IX, SAIDAPET, CHENNAI. 2 THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, EGMORE, CHENNAI [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶31

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, J-3, GUINDY POLICE STATION, CHENNAI-32.

¶32

+1CC to M/S.V.RAMASAMY Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR NO.7331 CRL OP.17302/2020 Date :04/11/2020 MK:10/11/2020

¶33

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

Saravanan v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saravanan 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

P.Muthulingam Vs the State Rep by

Santhosh Vs State Rep.by

Mohan @ Kutty Mohan Vs the State Rep by