Allowed

S.Sundar@Sundarapandian v. State Rep by Its

Madras HC14 Dec 2021CRL OP/24378/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner apprehending arrest in connection with offences under Sections 294(b), 387, and 506(1) of IPC. Bail was subject to strict conditions including daily police reporting, execution of a bond with sureties, deposit of ₹20,000, and prohibitions against tampering with evidence or absconding.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest on execution of bond with sureties and deposit of ₹20,000.

S.Sundar@Sundarapandian Vs State Rep by Its — 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.24378 of 2021

¶6

S.Sundar @ Sundarapandian

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State represented by its The Inspector of Police, Minjur Police Station, Tiruvallur District. (Crime No.510 of 2021) ... Respondent

¶10

Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.510 of 2021 on the file of Inspector of Police, Minjur Police Station, Tiruvallur District.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.Sarathchandran

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.N.S.Suganthan Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶13

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 387 and 506(1) of IPC in Crime No.510 of 2021, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶16

The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is doing waste ash business in North Chennai Thermal Power Station. The petitioner and others, threatened the defacto complainant and received money for doing business in the North Chennai Thermal Power Station. Hence the FIR was registered against the petitioner. Hence the complaint.

¶17

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

¶18

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that he no objection to take the machine kept under the yard. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶19

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that 3 previous cases pending against the petitioner. However, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶20

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

¶21

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate - II, Ponneri, 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, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

¶22

[a] the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) to the credit of the Crime number and the defacto complainant is permitted to withdraw the same without prejudice to the right and contentions within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and shall produce the said receipt before the Court below.

¶23

[b] the petitioner and 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.

¶24

[c] the petitioner is directed to report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders and co-operate for investigation;

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

[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 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].

¶29

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

¶30

-sd/-

¶31

14/12/2021

¶32

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

¶33

TRUE COPY

¶34

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

¶35

¶36

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.II, PONNERI.

¶37

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE THIRUVALLUR [FOR INFORMATION].

¶38

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MINJUR POLICE STATION, TIRUVALLUR DISTRICT.

¶39

4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶40

+1 CC to M/S.SARATHCHANDRAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.14687

¶41

CRL OP.24378/2021

¶42

Date :14/12/2021 JPA 17/12/2021

¶43

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

S.Sundar@Sundarapandian v. State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Sundar@Sundarapandian v. State Rep by Its

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

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

Bikiraj Sakiya Vs State Rep by

Prasad Vs State Rep