Allowed

Karthick v. State Rep by

Madras HC6 Nov 2020CRL OP/17309/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case involving alleged affray, assault, and attempt to murder. The court imposed conditions including daily reporting, execution of a bond, and restrictions on tampering with evidence or absconding.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail subject to executing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, daily reporting, and prohibitions on tampering with evidence or absconding.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 06.11.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

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

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.17309 of 2020

Karthick

... Petitioner

Vs.

The State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, K-1 Sembiyum Police Station, Chennai (Cr.No.904 of 2020) ...Respondent

¶10

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.904 of 2020 pending on the file of the respondent police.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.A. Saran Raj

¶12

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

¶13

(This case has been heard through video conference)

¶14

The petitioner who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, 307 of IPC, in Crime No.904 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶15

The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant one Magesh Kumar is that due to previous enmity, the petitioner along with other accused persons way laid him and attempted to assault him with knife, fortunately he escaped. Hence, the complaint.

¶16

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 his name does not find a place in F.I.R and as he is friend of A1 he has been implicated in this case. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶17

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner along with other accused persons attempted to assault the defacto complainant with knife, unfortunately the victim escaped. He would further submit that there is no previous case pending against the petitioner. However, he opposed grant of anticipatory bail to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner.

¶18

Taking into consideration the fact that petitioner's name does not find place in the F.I.R and and there is no previous case pending against the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions;

¶19

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 V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, 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:

¶20

[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.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

[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].

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶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 V METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT, EGMORE, CHENNAI 4 THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, EGMORE, CHENNAI(FOR INFORMATION) 3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS. 4 INSPECTOR OF POLICE, K-1,SEMBIUM POLICE STATION, CHENNAI. CC to M/S.A.SARANRAJ Advocate on payment of necessary charges Sr.7481 CRL OP.17309/2020 Date :06/11/2020 RVR 19/11/2020

¶33

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

Karthick v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karthick 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.Noble Mangal Kumar Vs State Rep by

P.Murugan Vs the State Rep by Its

Ramachandran Vs State Rep.by Its

Prakash Vs State by

P.Loordu Mary Vs State by

S.Kannan Vs State Rep.by