Allowed

K.Nithishkumar v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC10 Feb 2021CRL OP/20515/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner apprehending arrest in a criminal case involving offences of obscene acts, words, insult, and criminal intimidation. Bail was granted subject to strict conditions including reporting, bond execution, and forbidding tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail subject to execution of bond for Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, daily reporting, and compliance with specific conditions to prevent tampering or absconding.

K.Nithishkumar Vs the Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 10.02.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.20515 of 2020

¶6

K.Nithish Kumar ...Petitioner Vs. State Rep. by ...Respondent Inspector of Police, Mecheri Police Station, Salem District. Crime No.806 of 2020

¶7

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.806 of 2020 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Nalliyappan For Respondent : Mr.S.Karthikeyan Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R (The case has been heard through video conference)

¶9

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 509 and 506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 in Crime No.806 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶10

The case of the prosecution as per the de-facto complainant is that there is a fight between the petitioner and the de facto complainant, during which, the petitioner is said to have taken photographs of the de facto complainant inappropriate position, when the same was asked by her, the petitioner abused the de facto complainant with filthy language and also threatened with dire consequences. Hence, the complaint.

¶11

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the

¶12

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

¶13

petitioner is an innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would submit that the petitioner and the de facto complainant are neighbours and there was a wordy quarrel between them, where a false case has been foisted against the petitioner as if the petitioner had taken photographs of the de facto complainant. He would submit that the petitioner produced the mobile phone to the respondent police. Therefore, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶14

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner deliberately taken inappropriate photographs of the de facto complainant, when the same was questioned by her, the petitioner abused her with filthy language and also threatened with dire consequences. He would further submit that the mobile phone has been recovered from the petitioner. However, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶15

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions made by the learned counsels and also the fact that the mobile phone has been recovered from the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:

¶16

a) 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-II, Mettur, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a 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:

¶17

[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.

¶18

[c] the petitioner 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.

¶19

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

¶20

[e] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

¶21

[f] 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

¶22

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

¶23

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].

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

-sd/-
10/02/2021
This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into
execution by all concerned
TRUE COPY
Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.)
High Court, Madras - 600 104.
TO
1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE II,
METTUR.
2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
SALEM DISTRICT. [FOR INFORMATION]
3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MECHERI POLICE STATION, SALEM DISTRICT.
CR.NO.806 OF 2020
CC to M/S.R.NALLIYAPPAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges
CRL OP.20515/2020
Date :10/02/2021
EP-23/02/2021

¶27

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

K.Nithishkumar v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Nithishkumar v. the Inspector of Police

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

Saravanan Palani Vs State Rep by

Rajesh Vs State Rep by

Sugan Vs State by

Venkatesh @ Venkatasubramaniam Vs State Rep by

Sankar @ Centaring Sankar Vs State Rep by

D.Yuvaraj Vs State by