Allowed

Manikandan v. State Rep by

Madras HC10 Nov 2021CRL OP/21118/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras granted anticipated bail to the petitioner, accused of attempt to mischief and theft, subject to specific bonds, reporting requirements, and orders to maintain contact with police and not tamper with evidence or abscond.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on anticipatory bail upon executing a bond for Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, reporting daily to police for four weeks, and complying with other non-compliance conditions.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Wednesday, the Tenth day of November Two Thousand Twenty One

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mrs Justice T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.21118 of 2021

¶7

MANIKANDAN

¶8

[ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]

¶9

¶10

STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, S-2, AIRPORT POLICE STATION, CHENNAI. CRIME NO.57 OF 2021.

¶11

For Petitioner : M/S T.ARUL Advocate

¶12

For Respondent : MR.N.S.SUGANTHAN, Counsel for Govt.Public Prosecutor

¶13

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.

¶14

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶15

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Section 380 r/w 511 of IPC in Cr.No.57 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶16

2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant lodged a complaint stating that he has working as security guard under L & T Construction, on 25.10.2021 when he was in duty, three unknown persons tried to steal the copper wire in the construction area and when they are noted by the defacto complainant, they escaped from the seen of occurrence. Hence, the complaint.

¶17

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶18

4.The learned Government Advocate submits that the petitioner along with other accused persons tried to steal the copper wire in the construction area where the defacto complainant is working as a security guard. He further submits that there is no previous case pending against the petitioner. However, he opposed for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and that there is no previous case pending against the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶20

6.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on

¶21

anticipatory 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 No.1, Alandur , on condition that the petitioner 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 and on further condition that:

¶22

(a)the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Court concerned may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

¶23

(b)the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of four weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

(e)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 anticipatory 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;

¶27

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

¶28

-sd/-

¶29

10/11/2021

¶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.

¶33

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

¶34

¶35

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.1, ALANDUR, CHENNAI.

¶36

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE CHENGALPATTU. [FOR INFORMATION]

¶37

3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶38

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, S-2, AIRPORT POLICE STATION, CHENNAI.

¶39

+1 CC to M/S T.ARUL Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.12570

CRL OP.21118/2021

Date :10/11/2021

TA-16/11/2021

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

Manikandan v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manikandan 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

Saravanan Vs State Rep by

R.Sasikumar Vs the State Rep by

T.Praveena Vs State, Rep. by

V.Thangadurai Vs State Rep by

R.Manikandan Vs State Rep by

T.Dinesh Vs State Rep by