Allowed

Prasad v. State Rep

Madras HC14 Dec 2021CRL OP/24308/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras granted anticipatory bail to two petitioners facing arrest for alleged offences including public nuisance, voluntary injury, and criminal intimidation. Bail was subject to conditions including reporting to police and execution of a bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners ordered to be released on bail upon execution of a bond with two sureties and compliance with specific reporting and conduct conditions.

Prasad Vs State Rep — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 14.12.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶5

CRL.O.P.No.24308 of 2021

¶6

1.Prasad 2.Ranganayaki ... Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State represented by The Inspector of Police, Kallakurichi Police Station, Kallakurichi.

¶9

(Crime No.1339 of 2021) ... Respondent

¶10

Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.1339 of 2021 pending investigation on the file of the respondent.

¶11

For Petitioners: Mr.K.Thenrajan

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.N.S.Suganthan, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For Intervenor : Mr.D.Senthil Kumar

¶13

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

The petitioners, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 506(i) of IPC in Crime No.1339 of 2021, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶16

The case of the prosecution is that on 07.12.2021 due to wordy quarrel the petitioner alleged to attack the defacto complainant in that incident the defacto complainant sustained simple injury and discharged from hospital. Hence, the complaint.

¶17

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶18

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

¶19

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that there is wordy quarrel, case in counter and civil dispute already pending. However, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶20

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

¶21

Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kallakurichi, on condition that the petitioners 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, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition 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 1st petitioner shall report before the respondent police on every Wednesday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders and the 2nd petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when requires for interrogation;

¶24

¶25

(d) the petitioners 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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/-

¶30

14/12/2021

¶31

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

¶32

TRUE COPY

¶33

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

¶34

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.I, KALLAKURICHI.

¶35

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE VILUPPURAM DISTRICT. [FOR INFORMATION]

¶36

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALLAKURUCHI POLICE STATION, KALLAKURUCHI.

¶37

4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶38

+1 CC to M/S. K.THENRAJAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.14704

¶39

RW 16/12/2021

¶40

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

Prasad v. State Rep

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasad v. State Rep

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.David Padmanaban Vs the Inspector of Police

Tamilan @ Tamilarasan Vs State Rep by

Alexander Vs Chandralekha

S.Sundar@Sundarapandian Vs State Rep by Its

K.Abdul Hameed @ Abdul Amith @ Raja Vs State Rep.by

Bikiraj Sakiya Vs State Rep by