Allowed

Ramachandran v. State Rep.by Its

Madras HC5 Nov 2020CRL OP/17341/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras granted anticipatory bail to three petitioners apprehending arrest in a domestic assault case. Bail was granted subject to strict conditions including daily police reporting for two weeks, executing surety bonds, and refraining from tampering with evidence or absconding.

What did the court decide?

Petition for anticipatory bail allowed with conditions including daily police reporting for two weeks, execution of surety bonds, and restraint from absconding or tampering with evidence.

Ramachandran Vs State Rep.by Its — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 05.11.2020

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶4

Crl.O.P.No.17341 of 2020

¶5

1.Ramachandran 2.Selvarani 3.Bharathidhasan ... Petitioners/Accused Vs. The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Madurantakam Police Station, Chengalpet District. [Crime No. 1702 of 2020] ... Respondent/Complainant

¶6

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest by the respondent police in Crime No. 1702 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Bhagirathan

¶8

For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz

¶9

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶10

(The case has been heard through video conference)

¶11

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 448, 294(b), 324 & 506(2) of IPC, in Crime No. 1702 of 2020, on the file of the respondent, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶12

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

¶13

2 The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant is that on 16.08.2020 at about 08.30 p.m., when the defacto complainant and her husband were eating at her father-inlaw's house, on the instigation of the petitioners, one Periyardhasan has assaulted the husband of the defacto complainant and abused them in filthy language and thereby, the husband of the defacto complainant sustained injuries. Hence, the complaint.

¶14

3 The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and that a false case has been foisted against them. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶15

4 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the injured has been discharged from the hospital. He further submitted that there are no previous cases pending against the petitioners. However, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶16

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 petitioners subject to the following conditions;

¶17

6 Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Madurantakam, Chengalpet District, on condition that each 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:

¶18

[a] the petitioners 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.

¶19

[b] the petitioners 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.

¶20

[c] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

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

¶22

[e] 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].

¶23

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

¶24

7 With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is ordered. -sd/05/11/2020 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

¶25

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURANTAKAM, CHENGALPET DISTRICT.

¶26

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE CHENGALPET [FOR INFORMATION]

¶27

3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶28

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MADURANTAKAM POLICE STATION, CHENGALPET DISTRICT.

¶29

CC to M/S. V.BHAGIRATHAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges

¶30

CRL OP.17341/2020

¶31

Date :05/11/2020 MK:23/11/2020 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Ramachandran v. State Rep.by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramachandran v. State Rep.by Its

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

Saravanan Vs the State Rep by

P.Muthulingam Vs the State Rep by

Santhosh Vs State Rep.by

B.Vasanthakumar Vs State by the Inspector of Police

Govindhsamy Vs State Rep by Its

P.Sathish Kumar Vs State Rep by