Allowed

Kalaiselvan v. State Rep.by

Madras HC7 Dec 2020CRL OP/18983/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras granted anticipatory bail to two petitioners facing charges of assault, injury, and threatening under IPC sections. Bail was subject to conditions including appearance before a Magistrate, execution of a bond, and reporting to police.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners ordered released on bail upon arrest, subject to execution of bond with sureties and specific reporting conditions.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 07.12.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.18983 of 2020

¶6

1.Kalaiselvan ... Petitioners
2.Suresh Kumar
Vs.
The State rep. by ...Respondent
The Inspector of Police
Kanniyur Police Station
Tiruppur District
Crime No.694 of 2020.
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of
Criminal Procedure Code, praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail
in the event of their arrest in Crime No.694 of 2020 pending
investigation on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioners : Mr.D.R.Arun Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER

¶7

(The case has been heard through video conference)

¶8

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences under Sections 341, 294 (b), 324, and 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.694 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶9

The case of the prosecution is that due to previous motive, there was a wordy quarrel between the petitioners and the de-facto complainant, as a result of which, the petitioners abused the defacto complainant with filthy language and attacked him by using knife on his head and thereby caused injuries and also threatened him with dire consequences. Hence the complaint.

¶10

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocents and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Therefore, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶11

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

¶12

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there are totally two accused in this case and the petitioners are added as A1 and A2. He would further submit that due to wordy quarrel, the petitioners attacked the de-facto complainant with knife and caused injuries. He would further submit that the injured has been discharged from the hospital and there is no previous case pending against the petitioners.

¶13

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also of 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:

¶14

a) Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail, in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Madathukulam, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties, 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:

¶15

[b] 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.

¶16

[c] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m for a period of two weeks and thereafter, on every Monday at 10.30 a.m until further orders.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

[f] 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].

¶20

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

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

¶22

-sd/07/12/2020

¶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
1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
MADATHUKULAM.
2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
THIRUPPUR.
3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KANNIYUR POLICE STATION,
TIRUPPUR DISTRICT.
+1 CC to M/S.D.R.ARUN KUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary
charges SR.NO.7964
CRL OP.18983/2020
Date :07/12/2020
TA-11/12/2020

¶25

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

Kalaiselvan v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalaiselvan 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

M.Srinivasan Vs the State Rep.by

Murugan Vs State Rep by

Arivy @ Aravindan Vs State Rep by

M. Ashok Vs the State Rep.by Its

Ramar (A-1) Vs the State by

Muthuvel Vs the State Rep by