Allowed

Beer Mohamed v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC26 Nov 2020CRL OP(MD)/13412/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants anticipatory bail to three accused persons facing allegations of abusive language and threats under IPC provisions arising from a civil dispute. The High Court imposed strict reporting conditions on the petitioner while acquitting others.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted anticipatory bail on condition of executing a bond with sureties, daily reporting for one petitioner, and appearance before the Magistrate within two weeks.

Beer Mohamed Vs The Inspector of Police — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.13412 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Date : 26/11/2020

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

CRL OP(MD). No.13412 of 2020

¶7

Beer Mohamed

¶8

Noorjahan

¶9

Mahamutha @ R.Mahamutha Begam

¶10

... Petitioners/Accused Rank No.1,3 and 4

¶11

¶12

State Rep.by The Inspector of Police, Natham Police Station, Dindigul District. Crime No.875 of 2020.

¶13

... Respondent/Complainant

¶14

For Petitioners: Mr.K.Rajesh, Advocate. For Respondent : M/s.M.Anandha Devi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶15

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C

¶16

PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.875 of 2020 on the file of the Respondent Police.

¶17

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶18

The petitioners, who are arrayed as Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 294(b), 323 and 506(i) of IPC, in Crime No.875 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶19

2.The case of the prosecution is that due to civil dispute, there was a wordy quarrel between the petitioners and the defacto complainant, in which, the petitioners were said to have abused the defacto complainant by using filthy language and also threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, the present complaint.

¶20

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent.

¶21

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

¶22

1/3

¶23

CRL OP(MD). No.13412 of 2020

¶24

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that due to previous enmity, the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he seek anticipatory bail.

¶25

5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), appearing for the respondent police submitted that due to civil dispute the occurrence said to have taken place.

¶26

6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that due to civil dispute, the occurrence said to have taken place and there is no other serious allegation against the petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

¶27

7.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or their appearance, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Natham, Dindigul District, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent Police or to the Police Officer, who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

¶28

(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;

¶29

(b)the first 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. Further, the petitioners 2 and 3 shall report before the respondent Police as and when required for interrogation.

¶30

(c)the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

¶31

(d)the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

¶32

(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]; and;

¶33

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

¶34

2/3

¶35

CRL OP(MD). No.13412 of 2020

¶36

(f)if the accused/petitioners thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

¶37

sd/26/11/2020 / TRUE COPY /

¶38

/ /2020 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶39

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶40

TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NATHAM, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. 2. DO-THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

¶41

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NATHAM POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. 4. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶42

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13412 of 2020 Date :26/11/2020 MS/PN/SAR-2/03.12.2020/3P.5C

¶43

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

¶44

3/3

Beer Mohamed v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Beer Mohamed v. The Inspector of Police

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

Balakrishnan Vs State Rep.by

Veeraputhiran Vs The Inspector of Police

B.Praveenkumar Vs The Inspector of Police

G.Dhanalaskhmi Vs The Deputy superintendent of police

Kanagaraj Vs The Inspector of Police

Purushothaman Vs State by Represented by Its