Allowed

Manikandan v. State by

Madras HC5 Jan 2021CRL OP/21036/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, a driver accused of illegal granite transportation under IPC Section 379. The court considered the delay in FIR registration and the petitioner's role. Bail was granted subject to conditions including execution of a bond with sureties, reporting to police, and refraining from tampering with evidence or absconding.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail to be released on execution of a bond with two sureties, subject to conditions of reporting to police, not tampering with evidence, and not absconding.

Manikandan Vs State by — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 05.01.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.21036 of 2020

Manikandan

...Petitioner

Vs.

State rep by The Inspector of Police, Bargur Police Station, Krishnagiri District. (Crime No.525 of 2020)

¶10

...Respondent

¶11

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No. 525 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jayachandran

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.S.Karthikeyan

¶14

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶15

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

(The case has been heard through video conference)

¶18

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences under Section 379 of IPC in Crime No.525 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶19

The case of the prosecution as per the de-facto complainant is that the petitioner is said to have transported granite stone, without any valid permission. Hence, the complaint.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case since he happens to be the driver of the vehicle. He would submit that the occurrence had taken place on 29.11.2019 and the case was registered only on 08.05.2020 after six months. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶21

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

¶22

Mr.S.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner transported granite stone illegally without any valid permission. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶23

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions made by the learned counsels and that the petitioner is being a driver of the vehicle, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:

¶24

a) 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 of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Krishnagiri, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties, 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:

¶25

[b] 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.

¶26

[c] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and required for the interrogation.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

[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].

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

-sd/05/01/2021 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY

¶34

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104. TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.I, KRISHNAGIRI. 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE KRISHNAGIRI [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS. 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BARGUR POLICE STATION, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT. CC to M/S.M.JAYACHANDRAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.21036/2020 Date :05/01/2021 cs 25/01/2021

¶35

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

Manikandan v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manikandan 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

S.Pushpamary @ Siriyapushpamary Vs State Rep by

Magendhiran Vs the State, Rep.by

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

Kaja@Kaja Mohideen Vs State Rep by Its

Karthikeyan Vs the State Rep.by

J.Santhosh Vs the State Rep by