Allowed

Sivanesan v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC30 Dec 2020CRL OP(MD)/16086/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to seven petitioners facing charges of assault and harassment arising from a civil dispute. The court imposed conditions including reporting to police daily, executing a bond, and prohibiting absconding or tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted bail to appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, within two weeks, subject to executing a bond with sureties and complying with specific reporting and behavioral c

Sivanesan Vs The Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.16086 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶4

Date : 30/12/2020

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN

¶7

CRL OP(MD). No.16086 of 2020

¶8

Sivanesan

¶9

Palpandi

¶10

Gurusamy

¶11

Ramayi

¶12

Suganthi

¶13

Minalkodi

¶14

Karuppu ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 7

¶15

¶16

State rep.by its The Inspector of Police, Checkanurani Police Station, Thirumangalam, Madurai District. (Crime No.2075/2020). ... Respondent/Complainant

¶17

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Prabhakaran,

¶18

Advocate.

¶19

For Respondent : Mr.M.V.Chandrasekaran, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶20

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

¶21

PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.2075/2020 on the file of the respondent police.

¶22

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶23

The petitioners, who are arrayed as Accused Nos.1 to 7, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of Women Harassment Act, in Crime No.2075 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶24

2.The case of the prosecution is that due to civil dispute, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶25

1/3

¶26

CRL OP(MD). No.16086 of 2020

¶27

there was a wordy quarrel between the petitioners and the defacto complainant, in which, the petitioners said to have abused the defacto complainant by using filthy language and also attacked him with Aruval and caused simple injury. Hence, the present complaint.

¶28

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

¶29

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 and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he seek anticipatory bail.

¶30

5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), appearing for the respondent police submitted that the injured sustained only simple injury and he has already been discharged from the hospital.

¶31

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 the injured sustained only simple injury and he has already been discharged from the hospital, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

¶32

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, Vadipatti, 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:

¶33

(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;

¶34

(b)the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m for period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation.

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

2/3

¶39

CRL OP(MD). No.16086 of 2020

¶40

(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;

¶41

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

¶42

sd/30/12/2020 / TRUE COPY / / /2021 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶43

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.

¶44

¶45

1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VADIPATTI.

¶46

2.-DO-THRO'THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI DISTRICT.

¶47

3.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHECKANURANI POLICE STATION, THIRUMANGALAM, MADURAI DISTRICT.

¶48

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

¶49

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.16086 of 2020 Date :30/12/2020

¶50

vsg/sts AE/KV/SAR-IV (04/01/2021) 3P / 5C

¶51

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

¶52

3/3

Sivanesan v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sivanesan 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

Sekar Vs Inspector of Police

T.Arokia Selvin Vs the Director

B.Dineshkumar, Vs D.Saritha

Kirubakaran Vs The Inspector of Police

Eswaran Vs The Inspector of Police

Psg College of Pharmacy, Vs The Pharmacy Council of India