Allowed

Parvathi v. State Rep by

Madras HC2 Sept 2021CRL OP/15803/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, an accused in a confict case involving abuse, assault, and criminal intimidation. The court noted the injury was treated only as an outpatient case. Bail was ordered conditioned on surrender within 15 days, execution of a bond with sureties, daily reporting for two weeks, and strict prohibitions on tampering with evidence or abs

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail in event of arrest within 15 days, subject to executing bond with two sureties, daily reporting for two weeks, and other conditions including prohibition on tampering with

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Thursday, the Second day of September Two Thousand Twenty One

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.15803 of 2021

¶7

PARVATHI [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]

¶8

¶9

STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BANAVARAM POLICE STATION, RANIPET. CRIME NO.172/2021.

¶10

For Petitioner : M/S.G.SOMASEKAR 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 offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.172 of 2021 seeks anticipatory bail.

¶15

2.The case of the prosecution is that there was a wordy quarrel between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. Due to which the petitioner abused and attacked the defacto complainant and caused simple injuries to him. Hence the complaint.

¶16

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

¶17

Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent. He further submits that the injured was only treated as outpatient. 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 treated as out patient, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶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 District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sholinghur on condition that the petitioner shall execute a separate 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:

¶20

(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;

¶21

(b) the petitioner shall report before the respondent daily at 10:30 a.m for a period of two weeks and thereafter as an when required for interrogation.

¶22

¶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

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

-sd/-

¶28

02/09/2021

¶29

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

¶30

TRUE COPY

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

1 THE DISTRICT MUNSIF CUM https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SHOLINGHUR, VELLORE.

¶34

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE VELLORE. [FOR INFORMATION]

¶35

3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶36

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BANAVARAM POLICE STATION, RANIPET.

¶37

+1 CC to M/S.G.SOMASEKAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.9590

CRL OP.15803/2021

Date :02/09/2021

TA-13/09/2021

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

Parvathi v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parvathi 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

Anand Vs the State Rep.by

K.Radhakrishnan Vs State Rep.by

Robin Rabel Vs State Rep by

Venugopal Vs the State Represented by

G.Dinesh Kumar Vs M.Ramya Devi

Krishnappa (47 Years) Vs Padmavathy