Allowed

V.Parasakthi @ Athiparasakthi v. State Rep by

Madras HC16 Feb 2021CRL OP/2651/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case involving IPC Section 294(b), 323, and 506(i) alongside the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. Considering the co-accused were released and the victim discharged, bail was granted subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail conditioned upon execution of a bond with sureties, reporting requirements, and undertakings against tampering and absconding.

V.Parasakthi @ Athiparasakthi Vs State Rep by — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 16.02.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.2651 of 2021

¶6

V.Parasakthi @ Athiparasakthi

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

-Vs-

¶9

The State Represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, G-10, Anaicut Police Station, Pavanjur, Chengalpattu District.

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of her arrest in Crime No.676 of 2020 is pending on the file of the respondent police.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Ramesh

¶13

The case has been heard through video conference

¶14

The petitioner/A1, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 323 & 506(i) of IPC, r/w Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, in Crime No.676 of 2020, on the file of the respondent/Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶15

2.The case of the prosecution is that there was a civil dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, as a result of which, the petitioner along with A2 had attacked the defacto complainant with hands and caused injuries Hence, the complaint was registered.

¶16

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and she is no way connected with this crime and she has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that co-accused has already been arrested and thereafter he was released on bail. He would further submit that there is no previous case pending as against the petitioner. Hence, he prays for anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶17

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there was a civil dispute between the petitioner and the defacto https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ complainant, as a result of which, the petitioner along with A2 had

¶18

attacked the defacto complainant with hands and caused injuries He would further submit that co-accused has already been arrested and thereafter he was released on bail. He would further submit that the injured person has been discharged from the hospital and there is no previous case pending as against the petitioner.

¶19

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the co-accused were released on bail and the injured person has been discharged from the hospital, this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶20

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on her appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Cheyyur, Chengalpattu District, 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 this petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

¶21

[a] the petitioner and the sureties shall affix his 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.

¶22

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police as and when required for interrogation.

¶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].

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is ordered.

¶29

-sd/-

¶30

16/02/2021 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104. TO

¶31

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, CHEYYUR, CHENGALPATTU 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE CHENGALPATTU(FOR INFORMATION) 3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS. 4 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, G-10,ANAICUT POLICE STATION, PAVANJUR,CHENGALPATTU DIST. CC to M/S.N.RAMESH Advocate on payment of necessary charges sr.1747 CRL OP.2651/2021 Date :16/02/2021 RVR 24/02/2021

¶32

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

V.Parasakthi @ Athiparasakthi v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Parasakthi @ Athiparasakthi 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

Divaya Vs State Rep by

S.Ekambaram Vs State Rep by

E.Vijay Vs State Rep.by

R.Suresh Vs State Rep by

Muthukumar @ Ponnudurai Vs the Inspector of Police

Ramasamy Vs State Rep by