Allowed

P.Saraswathi v. State Rep by

Madras HC29 Jun 2021CRL OP/11063/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Crl.O.P.No.11063 of 2021 is an anticipatory bail petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The High Court of Judicature at Madras granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners apprehending arrest for alleged offences of obscene acts, outraging modesty, and criminal intimidation, considering the injured person was discharged.

What did the court decide?

Granted anticipatory bail on condition of executing separate bond of Rs.10,000 each with two sureties, daily reporting for two weeks, and compliance with evidence tampering and absconding prohibitions

P.Saraswathi Vs State Rep by — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 29.06.2021

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTIC E M.DHANDAPANI Crl.O.P.No.11063 of 2021

¶4

1.Saraswathi 2.Yuvaraj 3.Hariharan 4.Dhanaraj ... Petitioners/Accused A1 to A4

¶5

Vs.

¶6

State rep. By The Inspector of Police, Uthiyur Police Station, Tiruppur District. (Crime No.334 of 2021) ... Respondent

¶7

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.334 of 2021 pending on the file of the respondent police.

¶8

For Petitioners : Mr.C.S.Saravanan For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl side)

¶9

ORDER

¶10

(The Case has been heard through Video Conference)

¶11

The petitioners who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 294(b), 355 and 506(i) of IPC in Cr.No.334 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶12

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners abused the defacto complainant in filthy language and they attacked the defacto complainant with hands and threatened her with dire consequences. Based on the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, the Law Enforcing Agency registered a case against the petitioners.

¶13

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

¶14

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the petitioners are innocent and the petitioners have not been committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and the defacto complainant had sustained only simple injuries. Hence, the learned counsel prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶15

The learned Government Advocate submits that injured person has been discharged from the hospital.

¶16

Considering the fact that the injured has been discharged from the hospital, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶17

Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram, on condition that the petitioners shall execute separate 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 the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

¶18

(a)the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Court concerned may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

¶19

(b)the petitioners 2 to 4 shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation and with regard to the 1^st petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation;

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

(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;

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

-sd/-

¶26

29/06/2021

¶27

This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned

¶28

TRUE COPY

¶29

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

¶30

¶31

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARAPURAM.

¶32

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TIRUPPUR [FOR INFORMATION]

¶33

3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶34

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, UTHIYUR POLICE STATION, TIRUPPUR DISTRICT.

¶35

CC to M/S C.S.SARAVANAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges

¶36

CRL OP.11063/2021

¶37

Date :29/06/2021 cs 15/07/2021

¶38

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

P.Saraswathi v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Saraswathi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.K.Prabakaran Vs State Rep.by

Balaji Vs State by Rep., .by

M.Kalaiselvi Vs the State Rep by

Arul, Aged 32 Years, Vs State by

B.Latha Vs C.Pradeep

Rajendra Kumar K Jain Vs State Represented by