Allowed

B.Yamuna v. State Rep.by Its

Madras HC23 Mar 2021CRL OP/5672/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to three accused persons under IPC sections 294(b), 323, 324, and 506(ii) in a case of alleged assault arising from a civil dispute. The court imposed standard conditions including appearance for interrogation and prohibition from tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest upon execution of separate bond with sureties and compliance with specified conditions.

B.Yamuna Vs State Rep.by Its — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶2

Tuesday, the Twenty Third day of March Two Thousand Twenty One

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr Justice V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.5672 of 2021

¶6

1 B.YAMUNA 2 B.VIJI @ VIJAYALAKSHMI 3 B.AISHWARYA ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 TO 4 Vs STATE REP.BY ITS THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, R-8, VADAPALANI POLICE STATION, VADAPALANI, CHENNAI-600 026. CRIME NO.28/2021. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶7

For Petitioners : M/S.R.GANESH KUMAR Advocate For Respondent : MR.S.KARTHIKEYAN Additional Public Prosecutor

¶8

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

¶9

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- ORDER (The case has been heard through video conference)

¶10

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii)_of IPC, in Crime No.28 of 2021, on the file of the respondent/Police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶11

Totally, there are four accused persons involved in this crime and the petitioners are arrayed as A2 to A4. The case of the prosecution is that there was a civil dispute between the petitioners and the defacto complainant, as a result of which, the petitioners along with A1 said to have abused and attacked the defacto complainant and caused injuries. Hence, the complaint.

¶12

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that co-accused had already been arrested and thereafter, he was released on bail. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioners along with A1 are said to have abused and attacked the defacto complainant and caused injuries. He would further submit that co-accused had already been arrested and thereafter, he was released on bail. He would further submit that the injured person has been discharged from the hospital. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the occurrence taken place in a wordy quarrel between them and the main allegation against A1, he was arrested and thereafter released on bail and the injured person has been discharged from the hospital, this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

¶15

Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, before the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate 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 conditions that:

¶16

[a] the petitioners 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.

¶17

[b] the petitioners shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation.

¶18

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

¶19

[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

¶20

[e] 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].

¶21

[f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

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

¶23

-sd/-
23/03/2021
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 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE No.XVII,
SAIDAPET, CHENNAI.
2.THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,(FOR INFORMATION)
EGMORE, CHENNAI.
3.THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
4.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
R-8, VADAPALANI POLICE STATION,
VADAPALANI, CHENNAI-600 026.
CRL OP.5672/2021
Date :23/03/2021
TK/16.04.2021

¶24

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

B.Yamuna v. State Rep.by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Yamuna 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

Ranjith Vs State Rep.by

B.Thilagam Vs State Rep by

H.Balaji Vs the State Rep by

Govindhan Vs State Rep by

Kamaraj Vs the Superintendent of Police

Palanisamy Vs the Superintendent of Police