Allowed

Guruprasad v. State Inspector of Police

Madras HC5 Mar 2021CRL OP/20899/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A bail petition filed under Section 439 CrPC was disposed of granting bail to the petitioner in a Section 364-A IPC abduction and robbery case, subject to strict conditions including property recovery and reporting requirements.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted bail on execution of bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties each for a like sum, subject to specified conditions including daily reporting.

Guruprasad Vs State Inspector of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 05.03.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.20899 of 2020

¶6

Guruprasad ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State rep by The Inspector of Police, Sipcot Police Station, Krishnagiri District. Cr.No.702 of 2020 ... Respondent

¶9

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Cr. No.702 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.M.P.Saravanan

¶11

For Respondent : Mrs.M. Prabhavathi, APP O R D E R (The case has been heard through video conference)

¶12

The Petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 14.12.2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 364(A) of IPC in Crime No.702 of 2020, seeks bail.

¶13

Totally, there are 11 accused and the petitioner is A3. The case of the prosecution is that A8 and A9 in this case were employed under the defacto complainant for some time. Thereafter, with the help of other accused, they abducted the defacto complainant and demanded money. Since, he refused to give, they have taken the ATM Card of the defacto complainant and purchased gold jewells for them. Hence, he was arrested on 14.12.2020 . Now, seeking bail the present application has been filed.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner have been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He is in jail from 14.12.2020. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶15

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

¶16

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that all the accused persons abducted the defacto complainant and snatched his ATM card and using the same, they withdraw money and purchased gold jewells and all the accused shared the jewells between them. She would further submit that now the case properties were recovered and investigation is almost completed. She would also submit that A1 was detained under Act 14 of 1982 and one of the accused is still absconding. Hence, she vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that case properties were recovered and investigation is almost completed and also taking note of the period of incarceration suffered by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:-

¶18

(a) Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to 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 learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Hosur, and on further conditions that:

¶19

(b) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar Card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity;

¶20

¶21

(d) the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature;

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

(g) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial 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 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];

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

-sd/-

¶29

05/03/2021

¶30

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

¶31

TRUE COPY

¶32

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104. TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II, HOSUR. 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE KRISHNAGIRI [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE OFFICER INCHARGE, SUB JAIL, HOSUR 4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS. 5 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SIPCOT POLICE STATION, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT

¶33

CC to M/S. M.P.SARAVANAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges

¶34

CRL OP.20899/2020 Date :05/03/2021 MK:08/03/2021

¶35

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

Guruprasad v. State Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guruprasad v. State 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

Santhoshkumar Vs State Rep.by

K.Lakshmi Vs State Rep by

Santhanakumar Vs State Rep by

T.Gnana Prakasam Vs State Rep.by

Manikandan Vs the Inspector of Police

Selvi Vs State by