Allowed

Vajiravel v. State by Its

Madras HC12 Oct 2021CRL OP/19325/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Original Petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by three petitioners arrested on 24.09.2021. High Court of Judicature at Madras granted bail pending investigation, subject to conditions including execution of bond, cooperation with investigation, and non-influence of witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted bail on execution of separate bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties (one blood surety) and subject to specific conditions regarding residence, reporting, and non-interference with wi

Vajiravel Vs State by Its — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 12.10.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.19325 of 2021

¶6

Vajiravel

¶7

Silambarasan 3. Manogaran

¶8

... Petitioners

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The State by its Inspector of Police, Solingur Police Station, Sholingur, Ranipet District. (Crime No.334 of 2021) ...Respondent

¶11

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C, prayed to enlarge the petitioners on bail pending investigation in Crime No.334 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police.

¶12

For Petitioners: Mr.K.G.Senthilkumar

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.L.Baskaran Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶14

ORDER

¶15

(This case has been heard through video conference)

¶16

The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 24.09.2021 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 307 and 506(ii) of I.P.C., in Crime No.334 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.

¶17

The case of the prosecution is that on 23.09.2021 at about 07.30 p.m., there was a wordy quarrel between the petitioners and defacto complainant, as a result of which, the 1^st petitioner said to have assaulted the defacto complainant's brother with his hands, 2^nd petitioner said to have assaulted him over his head with knife and 3^rd petitioner said to have assaulted him with a stick all over the body and threatened with dire consequences. Hence, the complaint.

¶18

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

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are no way connected with the alleged offence and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He would also submit that the petitioners are in jail from 23.09.2021. Therefore, he prays to grant bail to the petitioners.

¶20

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) vehemently objects to consider the bail petition stating that the petitioners are neighbours to the defacto complainant. The petitioners had caused injuries on the victim using knife. The 3^rd petitioner assaulted the defacto complainant with wooden log. He would also submit that the investigation is still at the initial stage.

¶21

Considering the vehement objections of learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) that the injured had been discharged from the hospital and undergoing treatment in the private hospital as outpatient and considering period of incarceration suffered by the petitioners and there is no previous case pending against the petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners with certain conditions:

¶22

Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their executing a separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/(Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties, one surety shall be a blood surety, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sholingur, Ranipet District and on further condition that:

¶23

(a) the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sholingur, Ranipet District may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or voter identity card or driving license or PAN card or Bank pass Book with photo affixed and attested by Bank Manager to ensure their identity;

¶24

(b) the petitioners shall co-operate with the pending investigation and shall stay at Trichy and report before the Inspector of Police, Rockfort Police Station, daily at 10.00 a.m. till the completion of investigation and the petitioners shall not enter into the jurisdiction of the respondent police.

¶25

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

(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;

¶29

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

¶30

-sd/-

¶31

12/10/2021

¶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.)

¶35

High Court, Madras - 600 104.

¶36

¶37

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SHOLINGUR, RANIPET DISTRICT.

¶38

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE VELLORE DISTRICT. [FOR INFORMATION]

¶39

3 THE OFFICER INCHARGE, SUB JAIL, WALAJAPET, RANIPET DISTRICT.

¶40

4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶41

5 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SHOLINGUR POLICE STATION, SHOLINGUR, RANIPET DISTRICT.

¶42

+1 CC to M/S.K.G.SENTHILKUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.11395

CRL OP.19325/2021

Date :12/10/2021

RW 13/10/2021

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

Vajiravel v. State by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vajiravel v. State by Its

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

P.Kasikumar, Vs State Rep.by

M.Arockiasamy Vs the Sub-Inspector of Police

Murugan, Vs the Inspector of Police

M/S. Nivi Knit Fashions Vs Rajkumar

Raja Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate Cum Revenue Divisional Officer

M/S.Nivi Knit Fashions Repby Its Vs Rajkumar