Allowed

A.Pugazhendhi v. State Rep.by Its

Madras HC26 Oct 2021CRL OP/19984/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras granted anticipatory bail to petitioners facing charges for offences including mischief, public nuisance, voluntarily causing hurt, molestation, theft, and criminal intimidation. The grant was based on the fact that no one sustained injuries during the alleged quarrel.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail via anticipatory bail with conditions of daily reporting, bond execution, and prohibition of tampering with evidence.

A.Pugazhendhi Vs State Rep.by Its — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Tuesday, the Twenty Sixth day of October Two Thousand Twenty One

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.19984 of 2021

¶7

1 A.PUGAZHENDHI [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED ]

¶8

2 MALLIGA

¶9

¶10

STATE REP.BY ITS THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NALLUR POLICE STATION, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT. CR.NO.333 OF 2021.

¶11

[ RESPONDENT ]

¶12

For Petitioner : M/S.B.ARAVINTHAN Advocate

¶13

For Respondent : MR.A.GOPINATH, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶14

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

¶15

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶16

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 427, 294(b), 324, 354, 447 & 506(ii) of IPC in Cr.No.333 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶17

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners and the defacto complainant were neighbours. The petitioners alleged to have trespassed into the agricultural land of defacto complainant and damaged the crops and abused in filthy language and also attacked the defacto complainant with wooden log. Thereby, the law enforcing agency registered a case against the petitioners.

¶18

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

¶19

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl side) submits that no one sustained injuries in the quarrel. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

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

¶21

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, Paramathi Vellore , 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:

¶22

(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;

¶23

(b)the petitioner/A-2 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 and the petitioner/A-3 shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation;

¶24

(c)the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

¶25

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

¶26

(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;

¶27

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

¶28

-sd/-

¶29

26/10/2021

¶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

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

¶34

¶35

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PARAMATHI VELUR, NAMAKKAL.

¶36

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

¶37

NAMAKKAL. [FOR INFORMATION]

¶38

3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶39

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NALLUR POLICE STATION, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT.

¶40

+1 CC to M/S.B.ARAVINTHAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.12045

CRL OP.19984/2021

Date :26/10/2021

TA-01/11/2021

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

A.Pugazhendhi v. State Rep.by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Pugazhendhi v. State Rep.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

Deva Vs State Rep by

Ganeshan Vs State Rep by

Punithakumar Vs State Rep by

Parthiban Vs State Rep by

Style One Retail Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Pandiyan Vs State Rep.by