Allowed

K.v.Sayan v. State Rep.by

Madras HC7 Jul 2021CRL OP/10126/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Original Petition sought bail enlargement after the cancellation of earlier bail due to non-appearance and interview exposure. The court allowed bail on strict conditions post-completion of prosecution evidence, mandating residence in Ooty and Sunday reporting.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner was enlarged on bail on strict terms including bond execution, residence in Ooty, weekly reporting to the trial court, and prohibition on similar nature offences or absconding.

K.v.Sayan Vs State Rep.by — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.10126 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 07.07.2021

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.10126 of 2021

¶7

K.V.Sayan ... Petitioner Vs. The State rep. By The Inspector of Police, Sholurmattam Police Station, Kotagiri, The Nilgiris. ... Respondent (Crime No.158 of 2017)

¶8

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code to enlarge the petitioner on bail in S.C.No.2 of 2018 pending on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, The Nilgiris, Udhagamandalam in Crime No.158 of 2017 on the file of the respondent police.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.Sunder Mohan

¶10

For Respondent : Mr.J.C.Durairaj Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R

¶11

This bail application is filed by the first accused in S.C.No.2 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, the Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam.

¶12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 1/6

¶13

Crl.O.P.No.10126 of 2021

¶14

2.Though the petitioner was initially released on bail, his bail was

¶15

cancelled, since he did not appear for the hearings and gave an interview, the contents of which was, likely to affect the progress of the trial. Upon cancellation of bail, the petitioner was re-arrested.

¶16

3.The challenge to the order of cancellation was rejected by this

¶17

Court in Crl.O.P.No.4533 of 2019 on 06.03.2019. The petitioner along with second accused again moved this Court seeking bail in Crl.O.P.Nos.8488 & 8495 of 2020. The said criminal original petitions were dismissed by me on

¶18

28.08.2020 on the ground that the trial was in advanced stage and there was

¶19

no change in the circumstances that existed on the date when the criminal original petition filed against the order cancelling the bail came to be dismissed by this Court. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the bail petitions, the petitioner moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP.No.5539 of 2020. While dismissing the special leave petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court gave liberty

¶20

to the petitioner to renew the request for bail after completion of the prosecution evidence. It is now claimed by the petitioner and conceded by the prosecution that the examination of the prosecution witnesses is complete and

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 2/6

¶22

Crl.O.P.No.10126 of 2021

¶23

what remains is only the examination of the defence witness.

¶24

4.Mr.Sunder Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶25

would submit that four defence witnesses are to be examined and the defence witnesses could not be examined because of the lock down imposed. The petitioner, who was re-arrested on 01.03.2019 has been incarcerated for nearly

¶26

2 years and 5 months. Now that the evidence of the prosecution is over, I do

¶27

not find any necessity for continuing the incarceration of the petitioner any further.

¶28

5.Considering the fact that the petitioner is from the neighboring state of Kerela, I am of the opinion that the petitioner could be enlarged on bail on strict terms. Therefore, this bail petition is allowed, the petitioner is enlarged on bail on the following conditions:

¶29

(a) the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, The Nilgiris. The sureties must be solvent persons, residents of either the Nilgiris or Coimbatore District and on further conditions that:

¶30

(b) the petitioner shall stay in Ooty till the completion of the case.

¶31

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 3/6

¶33

Crl.O.P.No.10126 of 2021

¶34

Impression in the surety bond and the learned Sessions Judge may obtain a copy of their Aadhar Card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity;

¶35

(d) the petitioner shall co-operate with the trial and report before the Trial Court on every Monday at 10.30 am apart from regular hearings.

¶36

(e) the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature;

¶37

(f) the petitioner shall not abscond during trial;

¶38

(g) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Sessions Juge/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 Sessions Judge/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];

¶39

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

¶40

With the above directions, bail is granted and this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.

¶41

07.07.2021

¶42

kkn

¶43

Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 4/6

¶45

Crl.O.P.No.10126 of 2021

¶46

To:
1.The Inspector of Police,
Sholurmattam Police Station,
Kotagiri, The Nilgiris.
2.The learned Sessions Judge,
The Nilgiris, Udhagamandalam.
3.The Jailor,
Sub-jail,
Conoor.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 5/6

¶48

Crl.O.P.No.10126 of 2021

¶49

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

¶50

KKN

¶51

Crl.O.P.No.10126 of 2021

¶52

07.07.2021

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 6/6

K.v.Sayan v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.v.Sayan v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Asianet Communications P Ltd. Vs 1.SURYA Tv,a Unit of Sumangali

Gandhimathi Appliances Ltd. Vs Vardhman Enterprises

Sun Tv Network Ltd., Vs M/S.Atlantic Cinema

A.Haridass Vs Hansraj Varma IAS

Mohammed Idris Brother P.Ltd., Vs 1.K.M.HAMEED Sultan & 3 Others

M/S. Kerala Jewellers Vs M/S. Kerala Jewellery