Allowed

Mohan v. State Rep by

Madras HC12 Oct 2021CRL OP/19346/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case involving alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 324, and 506(ii) IPC. The court approved the bail subject to standard conditions, including reporting daily to police, executing a bond with sureties, and not tampering with evidence, noting the victim was treated as an outpatient.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on anticipatory bail with conditions: bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties, daily reporting to police, and prohibitions on tampering with evidence or absconding.

Mohan Vs State Rep by — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Tuesday, the Twelfth day of October Two Thousand Twenty One

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

¶6

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.19346 of 2021

¶7

MOHAN [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]

¶8

¶9

STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VEPPADAI POLICE STATION, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT (CRIME NO.311/2021)

¶10

For Petitioner : M/S W.CAMYLES GANDHI Advocate

¶11

For Respondent : MR.L.BASKARAN, 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 offences under Sections 294(b), 324 & 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.311 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶15

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the defacto complainant are cousins. On the date of occurrence, due to civil dispute, there was a wordy quarrel between the petitioner and the de-facto complainant, as a result of which, both parties have attacked each other and thereby the de-facto complainant sustained head injury. Hence the complaint.

¶16

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶17

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the victim has been treated as outpatient. However, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶18

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

¶19

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also of the fact that the victim has been treated as outpatient, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

¶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 learned Judicial Magistrate, Kumarapalayam, 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, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

¶21

(a) the petitioner 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 petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m until further orders.

¶23

¶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

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

¶27

-sd/-

¶28

12/10/2021

¶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, KUMARAPALAYAM

¶35

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NAMAKKAL(FOR INFORMATION)

¶36

3 INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VEPPADAI POLICE STATION, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT

¶37

4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶38

CC to M/S W.CAMYLES GANDHI Advocate on payment of necessary charges Sr.11409

CRL OP.19346/2021

Date :12/10/2021

RVR 18/10/2021

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

Mohan v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan 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

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