Allowed

M.Prashanth v. State Represented by

Madras HC2 Dec 2020CRL OP/18873/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 341, 384, and 506(ii) of IPC. The petitioner was ordered to execute a bond with two sureties and adhere to specific conditions regarding reporting and not tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to executing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and complying with specific reporting and behavioral conditions.

M.Prashanth Vs State Represented by — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 02.12.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTIC E M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.18873 of 2020

M.Prashanth

... Petitioner

Vs.

The State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, S5-Pallavaram Police Station, Pallavaram.

¶10

(Cr.No.684 of 2019) ...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.684 of 2019 pending on the file of the respondent police.

¶12

For Petitioner : M/s. Swarnam J Rajagopalan

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER (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 294 (b), 323, 341, 384 and 506 (ii) of IPC, in Crime No.684 of 2019, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶15

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused waylaid the defacto complainant and robbed a sum of Rs.500/- at knife point. 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 he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶17

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that A1 was arrested and released on bail. 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.

¶18

Taking into consideration the facts and submissions of the learned Counsel and also the fact that there are no previous cases as against the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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 Judicial Magistrate - II, Tambaram, 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., for a period of two weeks and thereafter every Monday 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

-sd/-

¶28

02/12/2020

¶29

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

¶30

TRUE COPY

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.II, TAMBARAM 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE CHENGALPATTU(FOR INFORMATION) 3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS. 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, S5 - PALLAVARAM POLICE STATION, PALLAVARAM. CC to M/S.SWARNAM J RAJAGOPLAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges Sr.7890 CRL OP.18873/2020 Date :02/12/2020 RVR 08/12/2020

¶34

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

M.Prashanth v. State Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Prashanth v. State Represented 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

G.Sivakumar Vs State Rep by

Ramu @ Raman Vs the State Rep by

G.Arumugam Vs State Rep by

Mannar Vs State Rep by

T.Valli Vs State Rep.by

Raja Vs the State Rep by