Allowed

J.Rajkumar v. State Rep.by

Madras HC19 Mar 2021CRL OP/427/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case alleging suicide due to sexual torture, due to lack of prima facie evidence linking the petitioner to the death. Bail was subject to strict reporting and bond conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail in case of arrest, bound by bond with two sureties, required to report daily, and barred from absconding or tampering with evidence/witnesses.

J.Rajkumar Vs State Rep.by — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Friday, the Nineteenth day of March Two Thousand Twenty One

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice V. BHARATHIDASAN CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.427 of 2021

¶6

J.RAJKUMAR [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]

¶7

Vs STATE REP.BY [ RESPONDENT ] INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DUSI POLICE STATION, TIRUVANNAMALAI DISTRICT. CR.NO.2470 OF 2020

¶8

For Petitioner : M/S.A.SARANRAJ Advocate

¶9

For Respondent : M/S.S.KARTHIKEYAN, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶10

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.

¶11

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶12

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 306 of I.P.C in Crime No.2470 of 2020, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶13

The case of the prosecution is that the deceased and the petitioner belongs to the same village and both of them are working in a foot wear company. It is alleged the petitioner had given sexual torture to the defacto complainant due to which she committed suicide on 27.12.2020. Based on the complaint given by the father of the deceased, the case came to be registered.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner and the defacto complainant belongs to the same village and they both are working in the same company. He would further submit that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶15

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner said to have given sexual torture to the defacto complainant. Due to which she committed suicide. Hence he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶16

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

¶17

I have considered the rival submissions and verified the case diary produced by the Investigation officer and perused the records.

¶18

On a perusal of records it is clear that there is no prima facie materials available on record to show that the deceased committed suicide only due to the harassment of the petitioner.

¶19

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, 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 their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Cheyyar, Thiruvannamalai 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 daily at 10:30 a.m until further orders.

¶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

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

¶27

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

¶28

-sd/19/03/2021 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 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, CHEYYAR, TIRUVANNAMALAI DISTRICT. 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TIRUVANNAMALAI [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DUSI POLICE STATION, TIRUVANNAMALAI DISTRICT. 4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS. +1 CC to M/S.A.SARANRAJ Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.No.3810 CRL OP.427/2021 Date :19/03/2021 cs 31/03/2021

¶29

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

J.Rajkumar v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Rajkumar 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

M.Naresh Vs State Rep by

P.N.K.Baskaran Vs State Rep.by

Madhu Vs the State Rep.by

Venkatesan Vs State Rep.by

Vagaram @ Vikram Vs State Rep.by

E.Dayalan Vs State Rep by Inspector of Police