Allowed

M.Kumaran v. the State Rep by

Madras HC8 Oct 2021CRL OP/18171/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras granted bail to the petitioner charged with offences under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women Harassment Act, 2002, and IPC sections, considering the period of incarceration and absence of prior cases, subject to standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be released on bail on executing a bond with two sureties and adhering to conditions regarding reporting, non-tampering, and non-absconding.

M.Kumaran Vs the State Rep by — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 08.10.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.18171 of 2021

¶6

M.Kumaran ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by Inspector of Police, SRMC Police Station, Chennai.

¶9

(Crime No.810 of 2021) ... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C prayed to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.810 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.C.K.M.Appaji

¶12

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

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The petitioner who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 07.09.2021 for the offences under Sections 294-B, 354, 506(i) R/w. 4 of TNPWH Act 2002, in Crime No.810 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶15

The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant were taking lunch at private hotel, at that time, the petitioner had misbehaved the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not involved in the offence and he has been falsely implicated. He further submits that he is in jail from 07.09.2021. Hence he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

Considering the period of incarceration suffered by 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.

¶20

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.1, Poonamallee, and on further condition that:

¶21

(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;

¶22

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

¶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

08/10/2021

¶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, NO.I, POONAMALLEE.

¶35

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE THIRUVALLUR [FOR INFORMATION]. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SRMC POLICE STATION, CHENNAI.

¶36

4 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, PUZHAL. 5 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶37

+1 CC to M/S.C.K.M.APPAJI Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.11290

¶38

CRL OP.18171/2021

¶39

Date :08/10/2021 JPA 08/10/2021

¶40

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

M.Kumaran v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Kumaran 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

V.S.Rajesh Vs State Rep by

Kala Vs the State Rep by

M.Balamurugan Vs State Rep by

T.S.Palaniswamy Vs Inspector of Police

Ajay Ponmany Vs Inspector of Police

Venkatesh Vs State Rep by