Allowed

Saravanan v. State Rep by

Madras HC5 Jan 2021CRL OP/20640/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners accused under Sections 294(b), 323, and 506(i) IPC. Bail was subject to conditions including execution of a bond, reporting to police, and not tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Order granted anticipatory bail subject to execution of bond with sureties, daily reporting to police for two weeks, and strict adherence to conditions to prevent tampering or absconding.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 05.01.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.20640 of 2020

¶6

1.Saravanan ... Petitioners/Accused 1 and 2 2.Yuvaraj -VsState represented by ... Respondent/Complainant Inspector of Police, D-1, Chengalpattu Town Police Station (Crime No.4007 of 2020) Prayer : Criminal Original petition filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the event of their arrest in Crime No.4007 of 2020 is pending on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners: Mr.K.Manikandan For Respondent : Mr.S.Karthikeyan Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER

¶7

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(i) of IPC in Crime No.4007 of 2020, on the file of the respondent/Police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶8

2.The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enemity, there was a wordy quarrel between the petitioners and the defacto complainant, pursuant to which, the petitioners abused with filthy language and also assaulted the defacto complainant and thereby the defacto complainant sustained injuries. Hence, the complaint.

¶9

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and no way connected with this crime and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays for anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶10

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioners had assaulted the defacto complainant, due to which, the defacto complainant sustained injuries. However, he https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶11

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. 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 on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Chengalpattu, on condition that the petitioners 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, failing which this petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

¶12

[a] the petitioners and the sureties shall affix his

¶13

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.

¶14

[b] the petitioners 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.

¶15

[c] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

¶16

[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

¶17

[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].

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

TRUE COPY

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-I, CHENGALPATTU.

¶25

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, CHENGALPET [FOR INFORMATION].

¶26

3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶27

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
D-1,CHENGALPATTU TOWN POLICE STATION.
+1 CC to M/S K.MANIKANDAN Advocate on payment of necessary
charges SR NO.85
CRL OP.20640/2020
Date :05/01/2021
MN-18/01/2021

¶28

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

Saravanan v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saravanan 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

S.Pushpamary @ Siriyapushpamary Vs State Rep by

Magendhiran Vs the State, Rep.by

Manickavasagam Sambantham Vs M/S. Mt and T Rentals Ltd.

Manikandan Vs State by

Kaja@Kaja Mohideen Vs State Rep by Its

Karthikeyan Vs the State Rep.by