Partly allowed

Sivakumar v. State by

Madras HC29 Oct 2021CRL OP/20695/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal original petition sought bail for four accused persons facing charges of road blockade and public property damage during a local body election. The High Court granted bail to two petitioners who paid damages to the bus driver, with contingent discharge for the other two, subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to 1st and 2nd petitioners on bond of Rs. 10,000 each with two sureties; bail petition closed for 3rd and 4th petitioners.

Sivakumar Vs State by — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 29.10.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.20695 of 2021

¶6

Sivakumar

¶7

Vignesh

¶8

Angamuthu

¶9

Kameshwaran @ Kamaraj ... Petitioners/Accused

¶10

Vs.

¶11

State by: Inspector of Police, Olakkur Police Station, Viluppuram District.

¶12

(Crime No.471 of 2021) ... Respondent/Complainant

¶13

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C, prayed to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.471 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police.

¶14

For Petitioners : M/S.N.Saravanan

¶15

For Respondent : Mr.C.E.Pratap

¶16

Government Advocate (Crl.side)

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioners, who were arrested on 24.10.2021 and remanded to judicial custody for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 341, 353, 109 of IPC and 3(1), 5, TN Public Property (PRVNT.OF DAMAGE & LOSS) ACT, 1992 in Crime No.471 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.

¶19

The case of the prosecution is that when the local body election was conducted, the petitioner candidate ward member one Sudha was not permitted to cast vote in Chairman Election due to which there arose a wordy quarrel between the parties and thereafter, the petitioners along with other persons conducted road roko opposite to the BDO Office on NH-45 Road and they have also damaged the windshield

¶20

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

¶21

of the Government Bus bearning No.TN 45 N 4095 of worth about Rs.23,000/- using stone and tried to burn the bus using kerosene and the same was prevented by the police. Hence, the law enforcing agency registered a case against the petitioners.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are no way connected with the alleged offence and they have been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioners have been in jail from 24.10.2021. He further submitted that the petitioners on their own volition have paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the driver of the bus under due acknowledgement. Therefore, he prays to grant bail to the petitioners.

¶23

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioners conducted road roko and disturbed the public. He further submits that the 3^rd and 4^th petitioners are not arrayed as accused and the damage amount has been paid directly to the driver of the bus. He furthermore, submits that no one sustained injuries. However, he vehemently opposed for grant of bail to the petitioners.

¶24

Considering the period of incarceration suffered by the petitioners and since the 3^rd and 4^th petitioners are not arrayed as accused, the bail petition stands closed in the case of 3^rd and 4^th petitioner however, since the petitioners have paid the damage amount to the driver of the bus, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the 1^st and 2^nd petitioners with certain conditions:

¶25

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) each, with two sureties, each for a like sum and the receipt for payment of Rs.25,000/- to the Managing Director of State Transport Corporation to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tindivanam and on further condition that:

¶26

(a)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;

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

(e)on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, thelearned 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;

¶32

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

¶33

The respondent shall take necessary steps to get back the money from the driver of the bus and hand it over to the Managing Director of the Transport Corporation within a period of two weeks.

¶34

-sd/-

¶35

29/10/2021

¶36

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

¶37

TRUE COPY

¶38

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

¶39

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.I, TINDIVANAM.

¶40

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE VILLUPURAM [FOR INFORMATION].

¶41

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OLAKKUR POLICE STATION, VILUPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶42

4 THE OFFICER INCHARGE, SUB-JAIL, TINDIVANAM.

¶43

5 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶44

+1 CC to M/S.N.Saravanan Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.12156

CRL OP.20695/2021

Date :29/10/2021

JPA 01/11/2021

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

Sivakumar v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sivakumar 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

Ajeesh M.B Vs the State Rep.by

Dhanalakshmi Babu Vs the State Rep by

Sankar Vs State

Dhanavel Vs State Rep by Its Inspector of Police

Malarmannan Vs State Rep.by

Indirani Vs State Rep by