Allowed

Sathish @ Sathishkumar v. the State Rep by

Madras HC23 Nov 2021CRL OP/22197/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras granted bail to the petitioner, an accused in a riot-related offence, considering that co-accused were already on bail and the investigation was nearly concluded. Bail was granted subject to a bond and standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted bail on bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties and conditions including reporting weekly.

Sathish @ Sathishkumar Vs the State Rep by — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 23.11.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.22197 of 2021

¶6

Sathish @ Sathishkumar

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Rasipuram Police Station, Namakkal District. Crime No.1148 of 2021

¶9

... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.1148 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police.

¶11

For petitioner : Mr.K.T.S.Sivakumar

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.N.S.Suganthan Government Advocate

¶13

ORDER

¶14

(The case has been heard through video conference)

¶15

The petitioner who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 09.11.2021 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 448, 294(b), 324, 506(2) of IPC r/w 3(1) of Prevention of damages to Public Property Act 1984, in Crime No.1148 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police seeks bail.

¶16

The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the wife of one Jagananthan. On 09.11.2021, one Anbarasu and Ayyanar demanded to register the house in the name of their mother Parvathy to liquidate the loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/- which was borrowed by one Balaji who is the elder son of the said Jagananthan. The said Balaji died 2 years back. Hence, the said Anbarasu and other accused demanded the money from the defacto complainant and threatened her with dire consequences. Hence the complaint

¶17

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

¶18

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case and he would further submit that co-accused/A1 to A5 have been granted bail by this Court and that the petitioner has been been suffering incarceration for more than 10 days from 09.11.2021. Hence, he seeks for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶19

The learned Government Advocate raised objection but admits that co-accused have been granted bail by this Court and the investigation is alsmost completed.

¶20

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the co accused have been granted bail by this Court and that the investigation is almost completed and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶21

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing 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, Rasipuram and on further conditions that:

¶22

(a)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;

¶23

(b) the petitioner shall report before the respondent police on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m. until further orders.

¶24

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

¶25

(d)the petitioner shall not abscond during 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 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

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

¶28

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

¶29

-sd/23/11/2021

¶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. TO

¶33

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, RASIPURAM.

¶34

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NAMAKKAL [FOR INFORMATION]. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RASIPURAM POLICE STATION, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT 4 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, SALEM.

¶35

5 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶36

+1 CC to M/S.K.T.S.SIVAKUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.13257

¶37

CRL OP.22197/2021

¶38

Date :23/11/2021 JPA 24/11/2021

¶39

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

Sathish @ Sathishkumar v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sathish @ Sathishkumar v. the 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

Vijay Vs the State Rep by

S.Maheswari Vs State Rep by

Ranjith Vs State Rep.by

Suresh Vs the State Rep by

Pugazh Vs State Rep by

Mani Vs the State Rep by