Allowed

Ramesh v. State by

Madras HC27 Jan 2021CRL OP/19856/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal original petition for anticipatory bail, the Madras High Court granted bail to petitioner husband and wife apprehending arrest for alleged IPC offences involving quarrel and assault, subject to standard conditions including execution of a bond, appearance before police and Magistrate, and non-tampering with evidence. The High Court imposed conditions on sureties and authorized regist

What did the court decide?

Released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest, subject to execution of a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with sureties and compliance with specific conditions regarding appearance and conduct.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 27.01.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.19856 of 2020

¶6

Ramesh
2. Revathi .. Petitioners
Vs.
State represented by
Inspector of Police,
Sethurapet Police Station,
Puducherry.
(Crime No.71 of 2020) .. Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of
Criminal Procedure Code praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
the event of her arrest in Crime No.71 of 2020 pending investigation
on the file of the Respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Rameshkumar
For Respondent : Mr.V.Balamurugane
Public Prosecutor (Pondy)
O R D E R
(The case has been heard through video conference)

¶7

The petitioners apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 294(b), 323, 354, 506(i) and 34 of I.P.C. in Crime No.71 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶8

The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant and the petitioners are colleagues. The petitioners are husband and wife. The defacto complainant threatened the 2nd petitioner to join a labour union and work against the management and there was a wordy quarrel between the petitioners and the defacto complainant. Hence, the respondent police registered a case against the petitioners.

¶9

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶10

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

¶11

The learned Public Prosecutor (Pondy) would submit that it was only a wordy quarrel.

¶12

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions:

¶13

(a) 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 - IV, Puducherry, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties, 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:

¶14

(b) 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.

¶15

¶16

(d) The petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

¶17

(e) The petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

¶18

(f) 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].

¶19

(g) If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

¶20

With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is ordered.

¶21

This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned

¶22

TRUE COPY

¶23

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.IV, PUDUCHERRY. 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PUDUCHERRY DIST.[FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS. 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SETHURAPET POLICESTATION, PUDUCHERRY. CC to M/S.T.RAMESHKUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.19856/2020 Date :27/01/2021 ksm08/02/2021

¶27

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

Ramesh v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh v. State 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

Selvam Vs State Rep by

A.Gopi Vs State Rep by

Yuvaraj Vs the State Rep.by

Arivazhagan @ Arivu Vs State by

Ravikumar Vs State Rep. by

L.Murugasamy Vs State Rep by