Allowed

J.Saravanan v. State Rep by

Madras HC4 Aug 2021CRL OP/13600/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who apprehended arrest for alleged offences regarding a gambling game involving snatched money. The order imposed specific conditions, including reporting to police and refraining from tampering with evidence, citing a co-accused having already been released on bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be released on bail on execution of bond with two sureties for Rs.10,000 each, subject to reporting daily to police for two weeks and other standard conditions.

J.Saravanan Vs State Rep by — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Wednesday, the Fourth day of August Two Thousand Twenty One

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.13600 of 2021

¶7

J.SARAVANAN

¶8

[ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]

¶9

¶10

STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VANIYAMBADI TOWN POLICE STATION, VELLORE DISTRICT CR NO. 537/2021

¶11

[ RESPONDENT ]

¶12

For Petitioner : M/S.R.SASIKUMAR Advocate

¶13

For Respondent : M/S. C.E.PRATAP, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶14

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

¶15

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶16

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for an alleged offence under Section under Sections 294(b), 341 and 395 of IPC in Crime .No.537 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶17

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/A6 and other accused persons had played a gambling game i.e., Rammi with the defacto complainant, from which, the defacto complainant earned a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- and that amount was snatched by the petitioner and others. Hence, the complaint.

¶18

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and that he has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that the petitioner was not present in the scene of occurrence and his name was not found in the FIR. Based on the confession of the main accused only, the petitioner's name has been implicated in this case and the alleged amount was also recovered

¶19

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

¶20

from the main accused/A1. He further submits that already the coaccused was enlarged on bail. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶21

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submits that already co-accused was enlarged on bail. However, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶22

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and already co-accused was enlarged on bail, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶23

6.Accordingly, the petitioner 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, Vaniyambadi on condition that the petitioner shall execute 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

¶24

(a) the petitioner 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;

¶25

(b) the petitioner 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;

¶26

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

-sd/-

¶32

04/08/2021

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

¶36

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VAYAMBADI.

¶37

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE VELLORE [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VANIYAMBADI TOWN POLICE STATION, VELLORE DISTRICT

¶38

4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶39

+1 CC to M/S.R.SASIKUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.No.8172

¶40

APN 13/08/2021

¶41

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

J.Saravanan v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Saravanan 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

Jayanthi Vs Rajesh

Imran Noorullah Vs State, Rep. by

Vimal Vs State Rep by

K.Sivakumar Vs S.Ramya

V.K.Kannan Vs the State Rep by

Shanmugam Vs State Rep by