The Court made the interim bail of the first petitioner absolute subject to bond execution and reporting conditions, while closing the petition as infructuous for the second petitioner who is in custody.
1st petitioner granted bail; 2nd petitioner's petition closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 22.09.2020
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Crl.O.P.No.7464 of 2020
1.Manivel S/o.Samaravel @ Muttu 2.M.Chinnasamy S/o.Marimuthu ... Petitioners
Vs. The State Represented by The Inspector of Police Central Crime Branch Salem. (Crime No.6 of 2020) ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime No.6 of 2020 pending investigation on the file of the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Salem.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Sureshkumar For Respondent : Ms.S.Thankira Government Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R
(The case has been heard through video conference)
When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were granted interim bail by this Court on 07.05.2020. He would further submit that the 1st petitioner Manivel has complied with the orders of this Court and since the second petitioner M.Chinnasamy did not comply with the order of this Court, he was secured by the respondent police and he has been in judicial custody.
granted to the 1st petitioner Manivel in Crl.O.P.No.7464 of 2020 dated 07.05.2020 is made absolute subject to the following conditions;
(a) Accordingly, the 1st petitioner is directed to 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 learned Judicial Magistrate -V, Salem, within a period of two weeks from the date of commencement of the Court’s normal functioning, failing which the interim bail granted by this Court shall stand dismissed automatically;
(c) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;
(d) the 1st petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders.
(e) the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature;
(f) the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;
(g) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;
(h) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial 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];
(i) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.
-sd/-
22/09/2020
This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned
TRUE COPY
Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.V, SALEM. 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SALEM. [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, SALEM. 4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS. 5 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, SALEM. 6 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, SALEM. CC to M/S.S.SURESH KUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.7464/2020 Date :22/09/2020 RD 24/09/2020
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the interim bail granted to the first petitioner should be made absolute given his compliance with court orders.
Whether the Criminal Original Petition regarding the second petitioner should be closed as he is in judicial custody.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P.K.Shaji vs. State of KeralaReferred¶22
P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560] · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
1.Manivel S/o.Samaravel @ Muttu
2.M.Chinnasamy S/o.Marimuthu
The State Represented by The Inspector of Police Central Crime Branch Salem
A.D.Jagadish Chandira
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
