Allowed

T.Valli v. State Rep.by

Madras HC2 Dec 2020CRL OP/18926/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants anticipatory bail to petitioners apprehending arrest in a theft and house-breaking case under Sections 457, 380 IPC. The court imposed conditions including daily reporting and prohibition of tampering with evidence, directing trial based on P.K.Shaji.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to be released on bail with a bond of Rs. 10,000 each with two sureties, subject to conditions of daily reporting and no tampering with evidence.

T.Valli Vs State Rep.by — Anticipatory Bail | 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. 18926 of 2020

¶6

1.T.Valli ... Petitioners
2.Tamilmani
Vs.
The State represented by, ... Respondent/Complainant
The Inspector of Police,
Veppur Police Station,
Ulundurpettai Taluka,
Cuddalore Dsirict.
PIN – 606 304
[Crime No. 1099 of 2020]

¶7

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest by the respondent police in Crime No. 1099 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prabhu

¶9

For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz

¶10

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶11

ORDER

¶12

(The case has been heard through video conference)

¶13

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 of IPC, in Crime No. 1099 of 2020, on the file of the respondent, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶14

2.The case of the prosecution as per the defatco complainant is that on 24.07.2020, at 10.00 p.m., when he and his family members were sleeping at their home, somebody have broken the back door, stolen their Tin Box, which contains three sovereign of gold jewels viz., ear ring -2 (each ¼ sovereign), Neli Ring – 1 (1 sovereign), chain – 1(1 ¼ sovereign), Ring-1 (¼ sovereign) and Rs.25,000/- cash. Hence, the complaint.

¶15

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

¶16

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and that a false case has been foisted against them. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶17

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioners have broken the house of the defacto complainant and have committed theft of 3 ½ sovereigns of gold from his house. He would further submit that two sovereigns of gold was recovered. However, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶18

5.Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to the following conditions;

¶19

6.Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail in the event of their arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Vridhachalam, 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:

¶20

[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.

¶21

[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police every day at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation.

¶22

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

¶23

[d] the petitioners 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 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].

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

-sd/-

¶29

02/12/2020

¶30

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

¶31

TRUE COPY

¶32

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.)
High Court, Madras - 600 104.
TO
1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
NO.I, VRIDHACHALAM.
2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
CUDDALORE. [FOR INFORMATION]
3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
VEPPUR POLICE STATION,
ULUNDURPETTAI TALUKA,
CUDDALORE DISTRICT.
CC to M/S.C.PRABHU Advocate on payment of necessary charges
CRL OP.18926/2020
Date :02/12/2020
TA-09/12/2020

¶33

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

T.Valli v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Valli 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

G.Sivakumar Vs State Rep by

Ramu @ Raman Vs the State Rep by

G.Arumugam Vs State Rep by

M.Prashanth Vs State Represented by

Mannar Vs State Rep by

Raja Vs the State Rep by