Allowed

Ayyamuthu v. State Rep by Its

Madras HC8 Jan 2021CRL OP/20941/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras granted anticipatory bail to a petitioner facing six charges including public nuisance and voluntarily causing hurt. Specific conditions were imposed regarding daily police reporting, evidence tampering, and potential registration of an absconding FIR.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail upon arrest or appearance within fifteen days, subject to execution of a bond with two sureties on conditions including daily reporting, deposit of Rs.

Ayyamuthu Vs State Rep by Its — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 08.01.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.20941 of 2020

¶6

Ayyamuthu ... petitioner
Vs.
State Rep. by ... Respondent
The Inspector of Police,
Magudamchavadi Police Station,
Salem District.
(Crime No.674 of 2020)

¶7

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code to enlarge Bail to the petitioner in the event of his arrest in Crime No.674 of 2020 pending investigation on the file of the respondent.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Subash
For Respondent : Mr.S.Karthikeyan
Addl. Public Prosecutor
ORDER

¶9

(The case has been heard through video conference)

¶10

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 427, 323, 506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of TNPHW Act, 2002, in Crime No.674 of 2020, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶11

2.The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity, there was a wordy quarrel between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, pursuant to which, the petitioner abused him with filthy language and has also attacked the defacto complainant and threatened her with dire consequences, thereby the defacto complainant sustained injuries. Hence, the complaint.

¶12

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and no way connected with this crime and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays for anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶13

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

¶14

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner abused with filthy language and he has also attacked the defacto complainant and threatened her with dire consequences. However, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶15

Taking into consideration the nature of offence, the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

¶16

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 on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sankari, on condition that each of the petitioners shall execute a separate 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, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

¶17

[a] the petitioner and 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

[b] The petitioners shall deposit Rs.5,000/- to the credit of concerned Court, who, in turn, hand over the amount to the de facto complainant.

¶19

[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.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

[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 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].

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

-sd/08/01/2021

¶26

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

¶27

TRUE COPY

¶28

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104. TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.II, SANKARI. 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SALEM. [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS. 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MAGUDAMCHAVADI POLICE STATION, SALEM DISTRICT. CC to M/S M.SUBASH Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.20941/2020 Date :08/01/2021 TA-29/01/2021

¶29

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

Ayyamuthu v. State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayyamuthu v. State Rep by Its

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

Dinesh Vs State Rep by

Chitra Vs State Rep by

K.Karan Vs State Rep. by

Noor Mohammed Vs State Rep. by

S.Sadhasivam Vs State by

Palanisamy Vs the State Rep.by