Allowed

E.Rangarajan v. State Rep.by

Madras HC7 Oct 2021CRL OP/18936/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Original Petition No.18936 of 2021, the High Court of Madras considered an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioners faced charges for insult to woman publically (294 IPC) and criminal intimidation (506 IPC) following a political quarrel. Finding no injuries sustained, the court granted bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest subject to executing a bond of Rs.10,000 each with sureties, reporting to police daily for two weeks, and complying with strict condit

E.Rangarajan Vs State Rep.by — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Thursday, the Seventh day of October Two Thousand Twenty One

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.18936 of 2021

¶7

1.E.RANGARAJAN [PETITIONERS] 2.E.RAJASEKAR

¶8

¶9

STATE REPRESENTED BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, S-16 PERUMBAKKAM POLICE STATION, CHENNAI. (CRIME NO.1045 OF 2021)

¶10

[RESPONDENT]

¶11

For Petitioner : M/S.S.SURESH Advocate

¶12

For Respondent : MR.C.E.PRATAP, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶13

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.

¶14

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶15

The petitioners who apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC in Cr.No.1045 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶16

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners and the de-fact complainant belong to different political parties. During Panchayat election campaign, there arose a wordy quarrel between the petitioners and the de-facto complainant and the petitioners threatened the de-facto complainant with dire consequences. Hence, the Law Enforcing Agency registered a case against the petitioners.

¶17

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submits that due to election campaign there arose only a wordy quarrel and no one sustained injuries. Hence, the learned counsel prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶18

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl side) submits that there was only altercation between the parties and no one sustained injuries. However he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

Considering the fact that the no one sustained injuries, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶20

6.Accordingly, the petitioners are 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 No.I Alandhur, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each, 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 petitioners 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 petitioners 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 petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

¶24

(d)the petitioners 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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

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

¶27

-sd/-

¶28

07/10/2021

¶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

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

¶33

¶34

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, ALANDHUR.

¶35

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE CHENGALPATTU [FOR INFORMATION]

¶36

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, S-16 PERUMBAKKAM POLICE STATION, CHENNAI.

¶37

4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶38

+1 CC to M/S.S.SURESH Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.11188

CRL OP.18936/2021

Date :07/10/2021

CSK 08/10/2021

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

E.Rangarajan v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.Rangarajan 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

Singravelan @ Singaravadivelan Vs State Rep by

S.Ezhumalai Vs the State Rep by

Saravanan Vs State Rep by

O.Venkatachalapathy Vs G.Sarojini

V.Sathishbabu Vs State Rep by

G.S.Rajesh Vs State Rep by