Allowed

Kumar v. State by

Madras HC27 Oct 2021CRL OP/20091/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Original Petition No.20091 of 2021, the Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners facing charges under IPC Sections 341 and 364 for kidnapping. The court found no serious allegations, imposed conditions including daily reporting and surrender within 15 days, and cited P.K.Shaji for consequences of breach.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted anticipatory bail and released on bail within 15 days on execution of bond with conditions to not tamper with evidence or abscond.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Wednesday, the Twenty Seventh day of October Two Thousand Twenty One

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.20091 of 2021

¶7

1 KUMAR [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED ]

¶8

2 MUTHUKUMAR @ MUTHUSAMY

¶9

¶10

STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ADAMBAKKAM POLICE STATION, CHENNAI. CR.NO.337/2021.

¶11

[ RESPONDENT ]

¶12

For Petitioner : M/S. C.PRABAKARAN Advocate

¶13

For Respondent : M/S.C.E.PRATAP, 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 at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 341 & 364 of I.P.C in Cr.No.337 of 2021, seek anticipatory bail.

¶17

2.The case of the prosecution is that the De-facto Complainant's father had received money from the petitioners on making promise that he will secure a Government job but he neither secured the job nor returned the money to the petitioners. When the same was questioned by the petitioners, there arose a wordy quarrel between the petitioners and the De-facto Complainant thereby the petitioners forcibly kidnapped the De-facto Complainant's father. Hence the Defacto Complainant had lodged a complaint against the petitioners based on which the law enforcing agency registered a case against the petitioners.

¶18

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Further the petitioners herein were cheated by the De-facto Complainant's father under the guise of securing jobs in the Government Department. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Hence prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶19

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the De-facto Complainant's father was secured and that there is no serious allegation levelled against the petitioners.

¶20

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case that

¶21

there is no serious allegation levelled against the petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶22

6.Accordingly, the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail and they 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 Judicial Magistrate Court, Alandur, 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:

¶23

(a)if the petitioners failed to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;

¶24

(b)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;

¶25

(c)the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders;

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

(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]; and;

¶29

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

¶30

-sd/-

¶31

27/10/2021

¶32

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

¶33

TRUE COPY

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

¶37

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

¶38

ALANDUR, CHENNAI.

¶39

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE CHENGALPATTU. [FOR INFORMATION]

¶40

3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶41

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ADAMBAKKAM POLICE STATION, CHENNAI.

¶42

+1 CC to M/S. C.PRABAKARAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.11912

CRL OP.20091/2021

Date :27/10/2021

TA-10/11/2021

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

Kumar v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumar 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

Arunkumar Vs State Rep by

Selvaraj Vs State Rep by

Uma Vs the Inspector of Police

Krishnaraj Vs Lakshmi

S.Sankar @ Deva Vs State Rep by

Sumathi Vs the State Rep.by