Allowed

S.Kannan v. State Rep.by

Madras HC6 Nov 2020CRL OP/17424/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras considered an anticipatory bail petition under Section 438 CrPC. The petitioner faced charges of assault and insult. Finding the injured party had been discharged and no prior cases existed, the court granted bail subject to strict reporting and conduct conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail on bond for Rs. 10,000 with two sureties for Rs. 10,000 each, subject to daily reporting for two weeks and thereafter weekly.

S.Kannan 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 Crl.O.P.No.17424 of 2020

S.Kannan

... Petitioner

Vs.

The State Represented by,

¶9

The Inspector of Police,

¶10

K-1, Sembium Police Station, Chennai – 600 011. (Cr.No.842 of 2020) ... Respondent

¶11

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

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Shinu

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz,

¶14

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶15

ORDER

¶16

(This case has been heard through video conference)

¶17

The petitioner who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 341, 294 (b), 323 of IPC r/w. Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, in Crime No.842 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶18

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the defacto complainant are neighbours. Due to wordy quarrel between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, the petitioner assaulted the defacto complainant, as a result of which, she sustained injuries. Hence, the complaint.

¶19

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

¶20

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 prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶21

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 as against the petitioner. However, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶22

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;

¶23

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 Metropolitan Magistrate – XV, 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:

¶24

[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.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

-sd/-

¶32

06/11/2020

¶33

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

¶34

TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104. TO 1 THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE NO.XV, EGMORE, CHENNAI. 2 THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, EGMORE, CHENNAI [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS. 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, K-1, SEMBIUM POLICE STATION, CHENNAI 600 011

¶35

+1CC to M/S.S.SHINU Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR NO.7346

¶36

CRL OP.17424/2020 Date :06/11/2020 MK:18/11/2020

¶37

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

S.Kannan v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Kannan 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

Karthick Vs State Rep by