Allowed

K.Ikbal v. State Rep by

Madras HC29 Jul 2021CRL OP/13116/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Coram Mr. Justice M. Dhandapani, this Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Considering the facts and circumstances, including that the injured party was discharged from the hospital, the Court ordered release on bail subject to strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Order passed for the release of petitioners on bail against bond of Rs. 10,000 each with two sureties subject to strict conditions.

K.Ikbal Vs State Rep by — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 29.07.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.13116 of 2021

¶6

1.K.Ikbal ... Petitioners 2.B.Sarath

¶7

Vs. The State Rep. By ... Respondent The Sub Inspector of Police, J-8, Neelankarai Police Station, Chennai – 600 115. (Cr.No.629 of 2021)

¶8

PRAYER : Criminal Original petition has been filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C prayed to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.629 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police herein.

¶9

For Petitioners : Mr.A.Rajamohamed

¶10

For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath

¶11

Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 447, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(1) of IPC in Crime No.629 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶14

2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is working as labour in TNEB. On 22.07.2021 at around 9.30 pm, the accused persons used filthy language in Hindi, due to which, the wordy quarrel arose between them, on account of which, the petitioners assaulted the defacto complainant. Thereby the defacto complainant sustained injuries and admitted in the hospital. Based on the complaint of the defacto complainant, the Law Enforcing Agency registered a case against the petitioners.

¶15

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶16

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submits there was a wordy quarrel between the defacto complainant and the petitioners, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ due to which, the petitioners have attacked the defacto complainant,

¶17

thereby the defacto complainant had sustained injuries. He further submits that the injured has been discharged from the hospital. However, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶18

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the injured was discharged, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶19

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on 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.II, Alandur, on condition that the petitioner 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 the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

¶20

(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;

¶21

(b) the petitioners 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;

¶22

¶23

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

¶24

(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 petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

-sd/-

¶29

29/07/2021

¶30

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

¶31

TRUE COPY

¶32

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

¶33

¶34

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.II, ALANDUR.

¶35

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE CHENGALPATTU. [FOR INFORMATION]

¶36

3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶37

4 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, J-8, NEELANKARAI POLICE STATION, CHENNAI-600115.

¶38

+1 CC to M/S A.RAJAMOHAMED Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.8000

CRL OP.13116/2021

Date :29/07/2021

TA-03/08/2021

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

K.Ikbal v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Ikbal 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

K.Jeevan Kumar Vs the State Rep.by

Sunil Vs State by

Muniyammal Vs State

R.Devaram Vs the Disignated Officer

S.Munusamy Vs State Rep. by

Arundev Pillappan Vs the Commissioner of Police