Allowed

Ranjith v. State Rep.by

Madras HC22 Mar 2021CRL OP/5604/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras granted anticipatory bail to three petitioners facing charges under Section 438 CrPC and sections of the IPC, considering the incident a family dispute and the discharge of the injured party, subject to standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Granted anticipatory bail conditioned on execution of bond with sureties, reporting, and abiding by court orders; breach warrants fresh arrest under Section 229A IPC.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 22.03.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No. 5604 of 2021

¶6

1.Ranjith
2.Jegadeesan
3.Dhanasekaran ... Petitioners
-Vs-
The State
Represented by its,
The Inspector of Police,
Kaveripattinam Police Station,
Krishnagiri District. ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 438 of Code of
Criminal Procedure to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners in
the event of their arrest in Crime No. 53 of 2021 pending
investigation on the file of the respondent.
For Petitioners : Mr.E.Kannadasan
For Respondent : Mr.S.Karthikeyan
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(The case has been heard through video conference)

¶7

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) IPC, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶8

The defacto complainant is the wife of the first petitioner and the second and third petitioners are the relatives. Due to some dispute, the defacto complainant questioned the first petitioner and all the accused persons attacked her and caused injuries. Hence, a complaint was registered.

¶9

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

¶10

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the dispute is between the defacto complainant and the first petitioner and she was living in her parental home. Now, in order to harass the petitioner a false complaint has been given.

¶11

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioners had attacked the defacto complainant and cause injuries. He would further submitted that there are no previous cases pending against the petitioners. He would further submitted that the injured person has been discharged from the hospital. However, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the dispute is between the members of the family and the injured person is discharged from the hospital, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with the following conditions:

¶13

[a] the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Krishnagiri, on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each 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;

¶14

[b] the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the respondent/police may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

¶15

[c] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police as and when required;

¶16

[d] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

¶17

[e] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

¶18

[f] 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 are 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];

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104. TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.I, KRISHNAGIRI. 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE KRISHNAGIRI [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS. 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAVERIPATTINAM POLICE STATION, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT. +1 CC to M/S. E.KANNADASAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.No.3871

¶24

CRL OP.5604/2021 Date :22/03/2021 cs 30/03/2021

¶25

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

Ranjith v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjith 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

Kumar Vs State Rep.by

J.Rajkumar Vs State Rep.by

Sampath Vs State Rep by

B.Thilagam Vs State Rep by

H.Balaji Vs the State Rep by

R.Selvi Vs State Rep by