Allowed

Baskar v. State Rep by

Madras HC9 Dec 2020CRL OP/18135/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Madras, in a Criminal Original Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., granted anticipatory bail to petitioners charged with offences under various sections of the IPC and Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, subject to specific conditions regarding reporting, bonds, and conduct.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to bond of Rs.10,000 and sureties, daily reporting, and conduct-related conditions.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 09.12.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

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

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.18135 of 2020

¶6

1.Baskar
2.Linganathan
3.Manikandan
4.Tamilarasan
5.Jayapalan
6.Radhakrishnan
7.Janagiraman ... Petitioners
Vs.
The State Represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
Chithamur Police Station,
Kancheepuram District.
(Cr.No.792 of 2020) ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C., to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their
arrest in Connection with the Crime No.792 of 2020 pending on the
file of the respondent police.
For Petitioners : Mr.G.Mageshkumar
For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz,
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(This case has been heard through video conference)
The petitioners who apprehend arrest at the hands of the
respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections
147, 148, 294 (b), 323, 324 & 506 (ii) of IPC r/w Section 4 of
TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, in Crime No.792 of
2020, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶7

The case of the prosecution is that there was a wordy quarrel between the petitioners and the defacto complainant, the petitioners have assaulted the defacto complainant, as a result of which, he sustained injuries on his hand and back. Hence, the complaint.

¶8

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

¶9

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶10

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 petitioners. However, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶11

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 petitioners subject to the following conditions;

¶12

Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the copy of the order is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Madurantakam, on condition that each of the 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:

¶13

[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.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

[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].

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

-sd/-

¶22

09/12/2020

¶23

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

¶24

TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104. TO

¶25

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURANTAKAM.

¶26

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE CHENGALPATTU [FOR INFORMATION]

¶27

3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶28

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHITHAMUR POLICE STAION, KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT.

¶29

+1 CC to M/S G.MAGESHKUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.No.8050

¶30

CRL OP.18135/2020 Date :09/12/2020 cs 16/12/2020

¶31

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

Baskar v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baskar 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

Cherukur Mani Vs the State Rep by Its

Madhavan Vs the State Rep. by

Radhakrishnan Vs State Rep.by Its

R.Sakunthala Vs Ramkumar

Vijay Vs State Rep. by Its

Ramkumar Vs State Rep.by