Allowed

Hari v. the State Rep by

Madras HC6 Sept 2021CRL OP/15639/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras granted bail to petitioner Hari, arrested in a gang-fighting murder case, after finding no specific overt act attributed to him. Bail was granted subject to standard conditions including daily reporting and appearance before the Trial Court.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties subject to conditions including daily police report.

Hari Vs the State Rep by — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED:06.09.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.15639 of 2021

¶6

Hari ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State rep by The Inspector of Police, SIPCOT Police Station, Krishnagiri District. (Crime No.201 of 2021) ... Respondent

¶9

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C, prayed to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.201 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jayachandran

¶11

For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The petitioner who was arrested on 21.06.2021 and remanded to judicial custody for the offence under Sections 147,148,341,294(b), 302, 506(ii), 109,120(B) of IPC, in Crime No.201 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶14

There are 11 accused persons involved in this case and the petitioner is arrayed as A5. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased and A1 in this case were friends and there was a wordy quarrel between them as to whether who is the gang leader in the group. Due to which there was a quarrel between A1 and the deceased and both sides attacked each other as a result of which the deceased died on the spot itself. Hence, the complaint.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is no way connected with the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioner has been in jail from 21.06.2021. Therefore, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶16

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

¶17

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that there is no specific overt act has been attributed against the petitioner and there is no previous case pending against the petitioner. However, he vehemently opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶18

Considering the period of incarceration suffered by the petitioner and there is no specific overt act has been attributed against the petitioner and there is no previous case pending against the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions:

¶19

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing 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 learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Hosur, and on further condition that:

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

(d)the petitioner 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 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;

¶25

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

¶26

-sd/-

¶27

06/09/2021

¶28

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

¶29

TRUE COPY

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II, HOSUR 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE KRISHNAGIRI [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SIPCOT POLICE STATION, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT 4 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, SALEM 5 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS. CC to M/S.M.JAYACHANDRAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.15639/2021 Date :06/09/2021 APN 07/09/2021

¶34

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

Hari v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari v. the 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

N.Hariprasad Kumar Vs State Rep. by

V.Kumar Vs the Sub-Inspector of Police

Kamaraj Vs State Rep.by

Maruthupandi Vs the State Rep. by

John Bosco Vs Ezhilrani

K.N.Babu Vs The Director General of Police