Dismissed

Surya v. State Rep. by Its

Madras HC19 Jan 2021CRL OP/410/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a criminal case involving public nuisance, voluntary hurt, and criminal intimidation. The petitioner appeared via video conference and was ordered to execute a bail bond before the District Magistrate within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on anticipatory bail subject to execution of a bail bond within 15 days before the District Magistrate and other conditions.

Surya Vs State Rep. by Its — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 19.01.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.410 of 2021

¶6

Surya

¶7

Vs. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, ... Respondent Arcot Town Police Station, Ranipet District. (Crime No.974 of 2020)

¶8

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code to enlarge Bail to the petitioner in the event of his arrest in Crime No.974 of 2020 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.G.P.Sivakumar For Respondent : Mr.S.Karthikeyan Addl. Public Prosecutor ORDER

¶10

(The case has been heard through video conference)

¶11

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) of IPC, in Crime No.974 of 2020, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶12

The case of the prosecution is that there was a wordy quarrel between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, pursuant to which, the petitioner assaulted the defacto complainant and thereby the defacto complainant sustained injuries. Hence, the complaint.

¶13

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and no way connected with this crime and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays for anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶14

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner had assaulted the defacto complainant, due to which, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

the defacto complainant sustained injuries. He would further submit that the co-accused has already been arrested and released on bail.

¶16

Taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case, the co-accused has already been arrested and released on bail, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶17

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 on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Arcot, 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:

¶18

[a] 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.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

[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].

¶22

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

¶23

-sd/-

¶24

19/01/2021

¶25

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

¶26

TRUE COPY

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

1 THE DISTRICT MUNSIF CUM
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ARCOT.
2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
VELLORE. [FOR INFORMATION]
3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
ARCOT TOWN POLICE STATION,
RANIPET DISTRICT.
+1 CC to M/S.G.P.SIVAKUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary
charges SR.NO.587
CRL OP.410/2021
Date :19/01/2021
TA-22/01/2021

¶31

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

Surya v. State Rep. by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surya 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

Ramar Vs State Rep.by

Sivaraj Vs State by

Gokulnath Vs State Rep by

Muthukumar Vs State by Inspector of Police

Dilli Babu Vs State Rep by

R.Arivahagan Vs State by