Allowed

Rajasekar v. the State Rep.by

Madras HC7 Sept 2021CRL OP/16237/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner apprehending arrest for alleged offences under the Indian Penal Code in a criminal case involving a land dispute and assault. Bail was granted subject to specific conditions and a bond.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail upon arrest or within fifteen days, subject to a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties and daily reporting for two weeks.

Rajasekar Vs the State Rep.by — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Tuesday, the Seventh day of September Two Thousand Twenty One

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.16237 of 2021

¶7

RAJASEKAR [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]

¶8

¶9

THE STATE REP.BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARUPPUR POLICE STATION, SALEM CITY. CRIME NO.234 OF 2021.

¶10

For Petitioner : M/S. R.CHAKKARAVARTHY 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 for the alleged offence under Sections 147, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(2) of IPC @ 147, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(2) and 307 of IPC in Cr.No.234 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶15

2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant and the petitioner are neighbours/adjacent land owners. There was a land dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. Due to wordy quarrel, the petitioner along with the other accused persons assaulted the defacto complainant with iron pipe and also threatened him. The defacto complainant sustained grievous injury. Hence, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioner. Thereafter, the Law Enforcing Agency registered a case against the petitioner.

¶16

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and the defacto complainant had sustained only simple injuries. Hence, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶17

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

¶18

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl side) submits that the injured person has been discharged from the hospital.

¶19

Considering the fact that the injured has been discharged from the hospital, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶20

6.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court-II, Salem, 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:

¶21

(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;

¶22

(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;

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

(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;

¶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

07/09/2021

¶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 COURT-II, SALEM.

¶35

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SALEM DISTRICT (FOR INFORMATION).

¶36

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARUPPUR POLICE STATION, SALEM CITY.

¶37

4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶38

+1 CC to M/S. R.CHAKKARAVARTHY Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.9679

¶39

CRL OP.16237/2021 Date :07/09/2021

¶40

INBA 21/09/2021

¶41

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

Rajasekar v. the State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajasekar 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

Thangavel Vs State Rep by

Shoodesh Vs State Rep by

Hari Vs the State Rep by

G.Natarasan Vs the State Rep.by

D.Jayaprakash Vs Inspector of Police

K.Rajendran Vs State Rep by