Allowed

Jaikumar v. State Rep by

Madras HC12 Mar 2021CRL OP/4704/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused of unauthorized river sand transport under Sections 379 and 430 IPC, subject to strict conditions including bail bond deposit, police appearance, and restrictions on tampering or absconding.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on execution of bond with two sureties, deposit of Rs. 10,000, daily police appearance, and prohibition on tampering/absconding for two weeks.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Friday, the Twelfth day of March Two Thousand Twenty One

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice V. BHARATHIDASAN CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.4704 of 2021

¶6

JAIKUMAR [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]

¶7

Vs STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PENNALURPET POLICE STATION, THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT (CRIME NO.27 OF 2021)

¶8

For Petitioner : M/S.R.PARTHIBAN Advocate

¶9

For Respondent : MR.K.PRABAKAR, 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 is the sole accused. Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 379 and 430 of IPC in Crime No.27 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail.

¶13

The case of the prosecution is that when the defacto complainant with his subordinates were conducting routine checkup, they intercepted the Bolero truck belonging to the petitioner and on inspection they found 1/4 unit of river sand without any valid authorisation. Hence, the respondent police registered a case against the petitioner.

¶14

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner did not indulged in any offence and hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶15

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and he has transported 1/4 unit of river sand unauthorizedly.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner is prepared to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- without prejudice to his defence.

¶17

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

¶18

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions :

¶19

(a) 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 of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Uthukottai, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties, 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:

¶20

(b) 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.

¶21

(c) The petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten Thousand only) to the credit of Sittar Koodam, Num Kulandhaigal Illam, 9/24, Arutpa Nagar, Kallikudi, Madurai District, having account at Canara Bank, Anna Nagar Branch, Chennai (A/c.No.974101551807, IFSC No.CNRB0000974 ), within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order without prejudice to his rights and contentions before the trial Court ;

¶22

(d) The petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation.

¶23

(e) The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

¶24

(f) The petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

¶25

(g) 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].

¶26

(h) 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/12/03/2021

¶30

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

¶31

TRUE COPY

¶32

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

¶33

1 THE DISTRICT MUNSIF CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, UTHUKOTTAI, THIRUVALLUR. 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE THIRUVALLUR [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶34

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PENNALURPET POLICE STATION, THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT.

¶35

5 SITTAR KOODAM, NUM KULANDHAIGAL ILLAM, 9/24, ARUTPA NAGAR, KALLIKUDI, MADURAI DISTRICT, HAVING ACCOUNT AT CANARA BANK, ANNA NAGAR BRANCH, CHENNAI (A/c.No.974101551807, IFSC No.CNRB0000974 )

¶36

CC to M/S.R.PARTHIBAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.4704/2021 Date :12/03/2021 MK:07/04/2021

¶37

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

Jaikumar v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaikumar 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

V.Shine Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

M.Thennarasi Vs State by

Kumar Vs State by

C.Amruth Vs the State Rep. by

Saravanan Vs State Rep.by

Karthi Vs State Rep by