Allowed

P.Mahalakshmi v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC8 Sept 2021CRL OP/16390/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who faced arrest for alleged unauthorized ticket booking under the Indian Railways Act. Bail was conditioned upon surrendering within 15 days, executing a bond, and making a non-refundable deposit to the Chennai Corporation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with conditions: Rs.10,000 deposit to Chennai Corporation, bond with sureties, surrender within 15 days, and daily police reporting.

P.Mahalakshmi Vs the Inspector of Police — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Wednesday, the Eighth day of September Two Thousand Twenty One

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.16390 of 2021

¶7

P.MAHALAKSHMI [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]

¶8

¶9

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE [ RESPONDENT ] RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, VILIVAKKAM, CHENNAI.

¶10

For Petitioner : M/S R.C.PAUL KANAGARAJ 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 Sections 143(1) (a) Indian RailwaysAct 1989, in Crime No.236 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶15

The case of the prosecution is that one Vinod Kumar and the petitioner were running a travels in the name and style of ABI Tours and Travels. They have been alleged to unauthorized selling of reservation tickets by booking the bulk multiple personal ID's. Hence, the complaint.

¶16

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. However, on instructions, the learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner, without prejudice his rights, on her own volition, is ready and willing to contribute a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the Corporation for the purpose of improving and maintaining the Government Schools.

¶17

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

¶18

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that there is no previous cases pending against the petitioner. However, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶19

5.Considering facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that there is no previous case pending as against the petitioner, 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 his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the XX Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, 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) if the petitioner failed to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;

¶22

(b) the petitioner shall make a non-refundable deposit of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the credit of the “The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation for the purpose of improving and maintaining the Corporation Schools under the control of Greater Chennai Corporation, Rippon Building, Chennai”., without prejudice to his defence before the trial Court and submit the proof of payment of the said amount before the aforesaid learned Judicial Magistrate, who after perusing the challan/ receipt/acknowledgement, shall accept the sureties furnished by the petitioner;

¶23

(c)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

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

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

(g)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

¶28

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

¶29

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

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

¶31

-sd/08/09/2021

¶32

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

¶33

TRUE COPY

¶34

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

¶35

¶36

1 THE XX METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT, EGMORE.

¶37

2 THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, EGMORE, CHENNAI (FOR INFORMATION).

¶38

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, VILIVAKKAM, CHENNAI.

¶39

4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶40

5 THE COMMISSIONER, GREATER CHENNAI CORPORATION, RIPPON BUILDING,CHENNAI.

¶41

+1 CC to M/S R.C.PAUL KANAGARAJ Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.9788

¶42

CRL OP.16390/2021 Date :08/09/2021

¶43

INBA 24/09/2021

¶44

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

P.Mahalakshmi v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Mahalakshmi v. the Inspector of Police

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

A.Yoganath Vs State Rep by

Saibaba Vs State Rep. by

Vinothkumar Vs the State Repby

Jayaselan Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police

Jeevanesan Vs the State Repby

M.Muthusamy Vs the State Rep by