Allowed

Raja v. the State Rep.by

Madras HC23 Mar 2021CRL OP/5770/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants anticipatory bail to petitioners accused of IPC offences including affray and attempted murder. The court imposed conditions, including appearance before police and a financial bond, referencing P.K.Shaji for breach consequences.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted anticipatory bail on execution of a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties and compliance with specific conditions regarding appearance and conduct.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice V. BHARATHIDASAN CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.5770 of 2021

¶6

1 RAJA [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED ] 2 MANIKANDAN 3 DANIEL 4 RAHUL 5 SIMLI @ VIJAYKUMAR

¶7

¶8

THE STATE REP.BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ADAMBAKKAM POLICE STATION, CHENNAI. CR.NO.733 OF 2020

¶9

For Petitioner : M/S. S.SUGENDRAN Advocate

¶10

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

¶11

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- (The case has been heard through video conference)

¶12

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 307, 506(ii) of IPC, in Crime No.733 of 2020, on the file of the respondent/Police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶13

The case of the prosecution is that there was a previous enmity between the petitioners and the defacto complainant, as a result of which, on 24.05.2020, the petitioners along with other accused persons are said to have abused and attacked the defacto complainant with knife and caused injuries. Hence, the complaint.

¶14

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, they were released on bail. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶15

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

¶16

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioners along with other accused persons are said to have abused and attacked the defacto complainant with knife and caused injuries. He would further submit that occurrence took place in the year 2020. He would further submit that co-accused had already been arrested and thereafter, they were released on bail. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the occurrence took place in the year 2020, now the arrested accused had already been released on bail and there is no previous case pending as against the petitioners, this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

¶18

Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Alandur, 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:

¶19

[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.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

[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].

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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,
NO.II, ALANDUR.
2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
CHENGALPATTU [FOR INFORMATION]
3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
ADAMBAKKAM POLICE STATION,
CHENNAI.
+1 CC to M/S. S.SUGENDRAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges
SR.No.3882
CRL OP.5770/2021
Date :23/03/2021
cs 31/03/2021

¶28

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

Raja v. the State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raja v. the 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

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