Allowed

Veeramanikandan v. State Rep by

Madras HC13 Aug 2021CRL OP/14365/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner who faced arrest for alleged robbery under Sections 342, 385, and 397 IPC. Conditions imposed include reporting daily, not tampering with evidence or witnesses, and depositing Rs. 25,000 to the complainant within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail with conditions to deposit Rs. 25,000 to complainant, provide sureties, report daily, and not tamper with evidence or abscond.

Veeramanikandan Vs State Rep by — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Friday, the Thirteenth day of August Two Thousand Twenty One

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.14365 of 2021

¶7

M.VEERAMANIKANDAN [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]

¶8

¶9

STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERUMANALLUR POLICE STATION, (CR.NO.1942/2020)

¶10

For Petitioner : M/S. R.RADHA PANDIAN Advocate

¶11

For Respondent : MR.A.GOPINATH, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶12

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

¶13

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶14

The petitioner who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Section 342, 385, 397, of IPC in Cr.No.1942 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶15

2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is engaged in the business of selling bedsheets and the petitioner has approached the defacto complainant that he is manufacturing bed sheets and thereafter, he made a phone call and informed him to come to a particular place. When the defacto complainant came to the spot, the petitioner along with other accused robbed a gold chain weighing 1.5 sovereigns, a cell phone and case Rs.3,000/- Hence, the complaint.

¶16

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The co-accused have been arrested and released on bail. However, on instructions, the petitioner is ready to deposit a sum of

¶17

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

¶18

Rs.25,000/- within a period of two weeks in favour of the defacto complainant. Hence, the learned counsel prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶19

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) submitted that the petitioner along with other accused have robbed a gold chain weighing about two sovereigns, one cell phone and cash Rs.3,000/-. The respondent police have recovered the gold chain and not recovered the cell phone and cash from the petitioner.

¶20

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made on either side, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶21

6.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, Avinashi, 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:

¶22

(a) the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) by way of demand draft to the credit of Crime No.1942 of 2020, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Avinashi without prejudice to his defence before the trial Court within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the learned Judicial Magistrate, after perusing the Demand Draft, shall accept the sureties furnished by the petitioner. Thereafter, the learned Judicial Magistrate is directed to disburse the amount to the defacto complainant on filing an appropriate undertaking affidavit before the trial Court.

¶23

(b)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;

¶24

(c)the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders;

¶25

(d)the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

¶26

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

¶27

(f)on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action

¶28

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

¶29

against the petitioner 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;

¶30

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

¶31

-sd/-

¶32

13/08/2021

¶33

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

¶34

TRUE COPY

¶35

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

¶36

¶37

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, AVINASHI.

¶38

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TIRUPPUR [FOR INFORMATION]

¶39

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERUMANALLUR POLICE STATION, TIRUPPUR.

¶40

4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶41

+1CC to M/S. R.RADHA PANDIAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.8538

CRL OP.14365/2021

Date :13/08/2021

CSK 25/08/2021

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

Veeramanikandan v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veeramanikandan 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

M.Loganathan Vs the Inspector of Police

A.Rajendran Vs State Rep by

Ayyappan Vs State by

C.K.Nandhakumar, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Mrs.Uma, Vs The Director General of Police

Allen Sunny Deol Vs State Rep.by