Allowed

Vicky @ Vigneswaran v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC17 Jun 2020CRL OP(MD)/6274/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners in connection with Crime No. 1018 of 2020 involving theft and assault. The court imposed conditions including appearing for interrogation daily for two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to conditions including daily appearance for interrogation for two weeks, execution of bond with two sureties, and appearance before Magistrate within 15 days.

Vicky @ Vigneswaran Vs The Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.6274 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶4

Date : 17/06/2020

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶7

CRL OP(MD). No.6274 of 2020

¶8

Vicky @ Vigneswaran 2. Alagu Mani @ Mani ... Petitioners

¶9

The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Town North Police Station, Dindigul District. (Crime No. 1018/2020) ... Respondent

¶10

For Petitioners : M/s Raja Karthikeyan,

¶11

Advocate.

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

¶13

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

¶14

PRAYER :-

¶15

For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. 1018 of 2020 on the file of the Respondent Police

¶16

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶17

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

¶18

The petitioners apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 294(b), 323, 395, 506(ii) and 397 of IPC, in Crime No.1018 of 2020 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶19

¶20

CRL OP(MD). No.6274 of 2020

¶21

The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant was manhandled by accused Nos.1 to 8 at V.O.C. Nagar, Dindigul and taken away the gold neck chain worth about 1-1/2 sovereign wore by the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint.

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that when there was a wordy quarrel between the defacto complainant and A1, A3, A4, A5, A6 and A7, the petitioners attempted to pacify the both parties. But the de-facto complainant wrongly arrayed the petitioners as the accused. He would further submit that petitioners are innocent persons and they did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution, hence, he prays for anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶23

The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that in this case, coaccused had already been released on bail and the investigation is almost completed.

¶24

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the co-accused had already been released on bail, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

¶25

(i) Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul and on their executing 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 learned Judge concerned;

¶26

(ii) The petitioners shall appear before the respondent police daily at 05.00 p.m for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required, for the purpose of interrogation.

¶27

(iii) 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 themselves as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560] ; and;

¶28

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

¶29

7.The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ stand dismissed.

¶30

¶31

CRL OP(MD). No.6274 of 2020

¶32

8.The petitioners shall comply with the conditions stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C scrupulously.

¶33

sd/17/06/2020 / TRUE COPY / / /2020 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, DINDIGUL. 2. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. 3. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.6274 of 2020 Date :17/06/2020 MPK SRS/ JC/ SAR-II/ 18.06.2020/ 3P/4C

¶34

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

¶35

Vicky @ Vigneswaran v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vicky @ Vigneswaran 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

Selvi Vs The Inspector of Police

Murugesan Vs The Sub Inspector of police

J.Jeyaseelan David Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police

M.S.Shanker Vs The Sub Inspector of Police

R.Gurunathan Vs the Inspector of Police

Selvaraj Vs The Inspector of Police