Allowed

Kanagaraj v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC26 Nov 2020CRL OP(MD)/13459/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the Madras High Court granted bail to a petitioner accused of threatening to send explosive substances via courier. The court considered the absence of injuries, the co-accused' bail, and imposed strict conditions including residence and reporting to police.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with bond of Rs.10,000/- and two sureties, subject to reporting to police and other conditions.

Kanagaraj Vs The Inspector of Police — Narcotics (NDPS) | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.13459 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.13459 of 2020

¶7

Kanagaraj ... Petitioner/Accused No.4

¶8

State Rep.by The Inspector of Police, Orathanadu Police Station, Thanjavur District. Crime No.1770/2020.

¶9

... Respondent/Complainant

¶10

For Petitioner : M/s.V.Nagarajan, Advocate.

¶11

For Respondent : Mr.KR.Bharathi Kannan,

¶12

Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶13

PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C.

¶14

PRAYER :- For a Bail in Crime No. 1770 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police.

¶15

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶16

The petitioner/A4, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 18.09.2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 4 (a) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and section 507 of IPC on the file of the respondent police seeks bail.

¶17

2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant preferred a complaint before the respondent that he has invested in Elphin Finance Pvt Ltd., and when he insisted for repayment he was threatened by the Finance Company by sending explosive substance through Courier. Hence the complaint.

¶18

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is no way connected with the said crime and he has been implicated based on the confession given by the co-accused. He would also submit that co-accused in this case was granted bail by this Court.

¶19

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

¶20

1/3

¶21

CRL OP(MD). No.13459 of 2020

¶22

The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) would submit that defacto complainant preferred a complaint before the respondent that he has invested in Elphin Finance Pvt Ltd., and when he insisted for repayment he was threatened by the Finance Company by sending explosive substance through Courier. He would also submit that no previous case is pending against the petitioner and no one sustained injuries in the said occurrence.

¶23

Taking note of the above facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into consideration the period of incarceration and also the fact that no one sustained injuries in the said occurrence and also the fact that co-accused in this case was granted bail by this Court, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

¶24

6.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing 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 learned Judicial Magistrate, Orathanadu, Thanjavur District

¶25

i) the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate/concerned court may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity

¶26

ii) the petitioner shall stay at Karur and report before the Karur Town Police Station daily at 10.30 a.m until further orders.

¶27

iii)the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness.

¶28

iv) the petitioner shall not abscond during trial.

¶29

v)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 Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].

¶30

vi) If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

¶31

/ TRUE COPY /

¶32

/ /2020

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

2/3

¶36

CRL OP(MD). No.13459 of 2020

¶37

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.

¶38

¶39

THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ORATHANADU, THANJAVUR DISTRICT.

¶40

DO-THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THANJAVUR DISTRICT AT KUMBAKONAM.

¶41

THE OFFICER INCHARGE, DISTRICT JAIL, NAGAPATTINAM.

¶42

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ORATHANADU POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR DISTRICT.

¶43

THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶44

COPY TO:

¶45

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARUR TOWN POLICE STATION, KARUR.

¶46

+1cc to Mr.V.NAGARAJAN, Advocate in SR.No.7697

¶47

MS/VR/SAR-2/26.11.2020/3P.8C

¶48

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

¶49

3/3

Kanagaraj v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanagaraj 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

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

Beer Mohamed Vs The Inspector of Police

G.Dhanalaskhmi Vs The Deputy superintendent of police

Purushothaman Vs State by Represented by Its