Allowed

S.Surya v. State Rep by

Madras HC5 Feb 2021CRL OP/1815/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 438 CrPC in a case involving alleged assault and criminal intimidation, subject to conditions including appearance before the Magistrate, execution of bond, and non-tamper directives.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail subject to executing a bond with two sureties, appearing daily at the Magistrate's court, and not tampering with evidence or witnesses.

S.Surya Vs State Rep by — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 05.02.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. BHARATHIDASAN Crl.O.P.No.1815 of 2021

¶5

S.Surya ... Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, J-10 Chemmanchery Police Station Chemmancchery, Chennai. (Crime No.940 of 2020) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 940 of 2020 pending investigation on the file of the Respondent.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Balaji For Respondent : Mr.S.Karthikeyan Addl. Public Prosecutor O R D E R (The case has been heard through video conference)

¶9

Totally, there are two accused and the petitioner is arrayed as A1. He apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) of I.P.C., 1860 in Crime No.940 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, and now, he has filed this petition seeking to grant anticipatory bail.

¶10

The case of the prosecution is that earlier, the petitioner's brother was attacked by a group of people and when the defacto complainant interfered, the petitioner and other accused said to have attacked and the injured was admitted in the hospital. In the said circumstances, the criminal case has been registered against the petitioner and now apprehending arrest, he has filed this petition seeking anticipatory bail.

¶11

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

¶12

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he is no way connected with the offence. He would submit that he has been falsely implicated as accused in this case. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶13

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that earlier, the petitioner's brother was attacked by a group of people and when the defacto complainant attacked those persons, they have intercepted between them, and the petitioner and other accused have attacked and the injured was discharged from the hospital. He would submit that the main allegation is against A1 and he was arrested and released on bail. He would submit that there is no bad antecedents pending against the petitioner and the investigation is also completed. However, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶14

I have heard and considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the records.

¶15

Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances, the main accused A1 was arrested and released on bail and there is no bad antecedents against the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:

¶16

a) 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 No.II, Alandur, Chennai, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties, 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:

¶17

[b] 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;

¶18

[c] the petitioner shall appear before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Alandur daily at 10.30 a.m. on all working days for the period of two weeks ;

¶19

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

¶20

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

¶21

[e] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

¶22

[f] 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];

¶23

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

¶24

With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is ordered.

¶25

-sd/05/02/2021 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY

¶26

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

¶27

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.II, ALANDUR, CHENNAI.

¶28

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE CHENGALPATTU [FOR INFORMATION]

¶29

3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶30

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, J-10, CHEMMANCHERRY POLICE STATION, CHEMMANCHERRY,CHENNAI.

¶31

+1 CC to M/S.C.BALAJI Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.1174

¶32

cs 12/02/2021

¶33

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

S.Surya v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Surya 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

Rajkumar Vs State Rep. by

S.Santhosh Vs the State Rep.by Its

Pichaimani Vs State Rep.by

Sathish Vs State Rep by

Tae Hyup Kim Vs State Rep by

Anand Kumar Parakh Vs State Rep. by