Allowed

Vasanth @ Vasanthakumar v. State Rep by

Madras HC12 Oct 2021CRL OP/19356/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a criminal case involving offences under sections 147, 148, 294(b), 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. The petitioner was ordered to report for investigation and comply with bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail conditioned to report for investigation, not tamper with evidence/witnesses, and not abscond.

Vasanth @ Vasanthakumar Vs State Rep by — Domestic Violence | 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.19356 of 2021

¶7

VASANTH @ VASANTHA KUMAR [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]

¶8

¶9

STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANCHI TALUK POLICE STATION, KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT. CRIME NO.1502 OF 2021.

¶10

For Petitioner : M/S.D.ASHOKKUMAR Advocate

¶11

For Respondent : MR.A.GOKULAKRISHNAN, 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 147, 148, 448, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 in Cr.No.1502 of 2021, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶15

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused are alleged to have entered into the defacto complainant's house and threatened his wife and children with dire consequence. Hence, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint before the law enforcing agency under the Women Harassment Act, against the accused persons.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there is a money dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant is an advocate and the investigation is pending.

¶19

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶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, No.II, Kancheepuram, 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 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 as and when required for investigation;

¶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

12/10/2021

¶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.II, KANCHEEPURAM.

¶35

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE CHENGALPATTU [FOR INFORMATION].

¶36

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANCHI TALUK POLICE STATION, KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT.

¶37

4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶38

CC to M/S. D.ASHOKKUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges

¶39

CRL OP.19356/2021

¶40

Date :12/10/2021 JPA 18/10/2021

¶41

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

Vasanth @ Vasanthakumar v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasanth @ Vasanthakumar 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