Allowed

D.Lakshmanan v. the State Rep by

Madras HC23 Jun 2020CRL OP/9206/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, D.Lakshmanan, facing charges under Sections 294(b), 323, and 353 of IPC. Bail was subject to conditions including appearance before the Magistrate, daily police reporting, and execution of a bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail with conditions: appearance before Magistrate, daily police reporting, bond with sureties, and restrictions on absconding/tampering.

D.Lakshmanan Vs the State Rep by — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.9206 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 23.06.2020

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.9206 of 2020

¶7

D.Lakshmanan
S/o.Durai
No.4/185D, Ponnai Main Road,
Lalapettai, Nellikuppam,
Mukundarayapuram,
Vellore District. ... Petitioner
Vs.
State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
D-5, Sipcot Police Station,
Ranipet,
Vellore District.
Cr. No.405 of 2020 ... Respondent

¶8

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the event of arrest in connection with Crime No.405 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police.

¶9

For Petitioner : M/s.J.Prakasam For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶10

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶11

1/4

¶12

Crl.O.P.No.9206 of 2020

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323 and 353 of IPC in Crime No.405 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶15

It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner is alleged to

¶16

have abused the Tasmac shop employee in a filthy language while issuing

¶17

token. Hence the complaint.

¶18

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that

¶19

the petitioner is an innocent person and he is no way connected with the offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶20

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner abused the Tasmac employee in a filthy language while issuing token and also the employee suffered simple

¶21

injury. He further submitted that there is no previous case pending against the petitioner.

¶22

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶23

2/4

¶24

Crl.O.P.No.9206 of 2020

¶25

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶26

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the

¶27

event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Ranipet, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two blood 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:

¶28

[a] the petitioner and the blood 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.

¶29

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of four weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation.

¶30

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

¶31

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or

¶32

trial.

¶33

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶34

3/4

¶35

Crl.O.P.No.9206 of 2020

¶36

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J

¶37

dpq

¶38

[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

¶39

Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].

¶40

[f] If the accused thereafter abscond/s, a fresh FIR can be registered

¶41

under Section 229A IPC.

¶42

23.06.2020

¶43

Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order dpq To

¶44

The learned Distirct Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Ranipet.

¶45

The Inspector of Police,

¶46

D-5, Sipcot Police Station, Ranipet, Vellore District.

¶47

The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

¶48

Crl.O.P.No.9206 of 2020

¶49

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶50

4/4

D.Lakshmanan v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Lakshmanan v. the 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

Santhosh Vs State Rep by

Muthukumar Vs State Rep.by

Sathish Kumar Vs State Rep. by

P.Mary Thomas Vs State Rep by

Arjunan Vs the State Rep by Its

Jaikumar Vs The Inspector of Police