Allowed

Rajkamal v. State Rep by

Madras HC12 Nov 2021CRL OP/20598/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in an FIR alleging assault, offensive language, injury, and property damage. Bail was conditioned on security, reporting, and non-absconding, considering the victim's discharge and counter-case.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail on execution of bond for Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, requisite reporting, and prohibitions on tampering, absconding, or fleeing.

Rajkamal Vs State Rep by — Narcotics (NDPS) | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Friday, the Twelfth day of November Two Thousand Twenty One

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mrs Justice T.V. THAMILSELVI

¶6

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.20598 of 2021

¶7

RAJKAMAL [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]

¶8

¶9

STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NAMAKKAL POLICE STATION, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT. Cr.No.1714 of 2021

¶10

For Petitioner : M/S.K.T.S.SIVAKUMAR Advocate

¶11

For Respondent : MR. N.S.SUGANTHAN, 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 for the alleged offence under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) IPC and Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act 1992 in Cr.No.1714 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶15

2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is a lorry driver bearing Regn.No.TN-28-AJ-9234. On the date of occurrence, when the defacto complainant proceeded his lorry from Namakkal to Salem and take “ U” turn his vehicle, the petitioner waylaid the defacto complainant by using his two wheeler and the same was questioned by the defacto complainant. Due to which, the petitioner along with other accused persons abused the defacto complainant and the cleaner of the lorry in filthy language , assaulted them, threatened them with dire consequences and also caused injuries to them and also damaged the headlight and front side mirror of the lorry. Hence, the complaint.

¶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. He further submits that there was a case in counter. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶17

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

¶18

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submits that the injured person has been discharged from the hospital.

¶19

Considering the fact that the injured person has been

¶20

discharged from the hospital and also considering the fact that there was a case in counter, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶21

6.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory 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 Court No.1 Namakkal, Namakkal District 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:

¶22

(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;

¶23

(b)the petitioner shall report before the respondent police on every Friday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;

¶24

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

¶25

(d)the petitioner 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 petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on anticipatory 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

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

¶28

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

¶29

-sd/-

¶30

12/11/2021

¶31

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

¶32

TRUE COPY

¶33

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

¶34

¶35

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.I, NAMAKKAL, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT.

¶36

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NAMAKKAL(FOR INFORMTION)

¶37

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NAMAKKAL POLICE STATION, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT.

¶38

4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶39

CC to M/S.K.T.S.SIVAKUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges sr.12663

¶40

RVR 17/11/2021

¶41

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

Rajkamal v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkamal 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

Lakshmipathy Vs State Rep by

Vedanayagam Vs State Rep by

S.Palanisamy Vs State Rep by

Rajadurai Vs State Rep by

Subramanian Vs Inspector of Police

C.Manivannan Vs State by