Allowed

P.Karthick v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC3 Dec 2020CRL OP(MD)/13935/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, a sole accused, in a case involving offences under Sections 294(b), 341, 323, and 506(ii) of IPC. The Court imposed strict conditions regarding reporting, surety bonds, and non-absconding given the land dispute context and a pending civil suit.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be released on bail upon arrest with conditions including reporting to police, executing bond with sureties, and prohibition on absconding or tampering with evidence.

P.Karthick Vs The Inspector of Police — Property and Title | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.13935 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶4

Date : 03/12/2020

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶7

CRL OP(MD). No.13935 of 2020

¶8

P.Karthick ... Petitioner/Sole Accused

¶9

¶10

The Inspector of Police, Shanarpatti Police Station, Dindigul District. Crime No.1100 of 2020.

¶11

... Respondent/Complainant

¶12

For Petitioner : M/s.I.Pinaygash, Advocate. For Respondent : Mrs.M.Anantha Devi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶13

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

¶14

PRAYER :-

¶15

For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.1100 of 2020 on the file of the Respondent Police.

¶16

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶17

The petitioner/sole accused, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 323 and 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.1100 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶18

2.Heard both sides.

¶19

3.The case of the prosecution is that due to land dispute between the parties, on the date of occurrence, there was a wordy quarrel arose between them. Due to which, the petitioner said to have attacked the de-facto complainant. Hence, the complaint.

¶20

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the de-facto complainant is the Ward Councilor and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

1/3

¶22

CRL OP(MD). No.13935 of 2020

¶23

petitioner is having small property at Korachinnampatti Village, Dindigul District. The de-facto complainant tried to occupy the said land illegally. In this regard, the petitioner filed a civil suit in O.S.No.120 of 2020 before the District Munsif Court, Dindigul against the de-facto complainant and the same is pending. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition before this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7516 of 2020 and this Court has directed the respondent police not to interfere with the petitioner in the name of enquiry. He would further submit that the petitioner is innocent and a false case has been foisted against this petitioner.

¶24

5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State would submit that due to land dispute between the parties, the petitioner said to have attacked the de-facto complainant. Hence, she opposed for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶25

6.Taking note of 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 event of arrest or his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul District, on condition that the petitioner shall 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 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:

¶27

(a)the petitioner 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;

¶28

(b)the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m., for a period of four weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation.

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

(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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Court in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560]; and;

¶32

2/3

¶33

CRL OP(MD). No.13935 of 2020

¶34

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

¶35

sd/03/12/2020 / TRUE COPY / / /2020 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶36

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.

¶37

¶38

1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.III, DINDIGUL.

¶39

2.DO-THROUGH :THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DINDUGAL DISTRICT.

¶40

3.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SHANARPATTI POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

¶41

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

¶42

ORDER

¶43

IN CRL OP(MD) No.13935 of 2020 Date :03/12/2020

¶44

SJI

¶45

AE/JC/SAR-IV (08.12.2020) 3P / 5C

¶46

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

¶47

3/3

P.Karthick v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Karthick 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

M.Prashanth Vs State Represented by

Mannar Vs State Rep by

T.Valli Vs State Rep.by

Paramananthan Vs State Rep.by

Ravichandran Vs the State Rep.by

Alagarsamy Vs The Inspector of Police