Allowed

Kalanidhi Gunasekaran v. State Rep by

Madras HC16 Nov 2021CRL OP/21227/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in Criminal Original Petition No.21227 of 2021 under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioner, charged with offences under Sections 379, 489, and 120 B IPC, alleged false implication. Considering that the investigation was nearly complete and a co-accused had already been granted bail, the Court allowed anticipatory bail subject to strict conditions

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted conditioned on executing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, reporting forthnightly, and not tampering with evidence or absconding.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Tuesday, the Sixteenth day of November Two Thousand Twenty One

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mrs Justice T.V. THAMILSELVI

¶6

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.21227 of 2021

¶7

KALANIDHI GUNASEKARAN [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]

¶8

¶9

STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, H-6, R.K. NAGAR HARBOUR POLICE STATION, CHENNAI. (CR.NO. 2080/2021)

¶10

For Petitioner : M/S.B.ELAKKIYA Advocate

¶11

For Respondent : MR.N.S.SUGANTHAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶12

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

¶13

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶14

The petitioner, who apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 379, 489 and 120 B of IPC in Crime No.2080 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶15

2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant, due to shortage of oil, removed the petitioner from his job, thereby, the law enforcing agency registered a case against the petitioner.

¶16

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner was falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner is an innocent person and no way connected to the alleged prosecution. The petitioner never worked as driver in the defacto complainant. Hence, the learned counsel prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶17

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) submits that the petitioner along with his father created problems on the date of occurrence. The petitioner replaced the original measurement scale with the tanker lorry, which went for loading fuel in the IOC terminal and the said property was recovered from the petitioner.

¶18

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

¶19

Considering the above facts that the investigation is almost completed and the co-accused was already granted bail. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶20

6.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 No.XV, GEORGE TOWN, 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:

¶21

(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;

¶22

(b)the petitioner shall report before the Judicial Magistrate No.XV, George Town, on every Friday at 10.30 a.m., until for orders.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

(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 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;

¶26

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

¶27

-sd/-

¶28

16/11/2021

¶29

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

¶30

TRUE COPY

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

¶34

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.XV, GEORGE TOWN.

¶35

2 THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, EGMORE, CHENNAI [FOR INFORMATION]

¶36

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, H6, R.K. NAGAR HARBOUR POLICE STATION, CHENNAI.

¶37

4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶38

+1CC to M/S.B.ELAKKIYA Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.12896

¶39

CRL OP.21227/2021 Date :16/11/2021

¶40

CSK 18/11/2021

¶41

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

Kalanidhi Gunasekaran v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalanidhi Gunasekaran 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

Baby Vs State Rep by

R.B.Jayakumar Vs State of Tamilnadu

Karthick@Middle Aron Karthick Vs the State Rep by

Gulab Patel @ Galbaram Vs State by

D.L.Ravichandran Vs Prabavathi

Manikandan Vs the State Rep by Its