Allowed

Rajendran v. the State Rep.by

Madras HC24 Mar 2021CRL OP/5778/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Original Petition sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for offenses including criminal force and public nuisance. The court granted bail considering a counter case filed by the petitioners and the discharge of the injured victim, subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners ordered to be released on bail in event of arrest or appearance within 15 days, on executing bond and complying with listed conditions regarding appearance, evidence, and conduct.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Wednesday, the Twenty Fourth day of March Two Thousand Twenty One

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice V. BHARATHIDASAN

¶6

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.5778 of 2021

¶7

1 RAJENDRAN [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED ]
2 PUNITHA
3 R.DEEPAN

¶8

Vs
THE STATE REP.BY [ RESPONDENT ]
INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
AVINASHI POLICE STATION,
TIRUPPUR DISTRICT.
CR.NO.104 OF 2021.

¶9

For Petitioner : M/S.C.RAMKUMAR Advocate

¶10

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

¶11

The petitioners who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences publishable under Sections 294 (b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) of IPC|, in Crime No.104 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶12

The case of the prosecution is that first petitioner is the brother of the defacto complainant and that there is a civil dispute between the parties. On the date of occurrence, a wordy quarrel arose between the parties, due to which, the petitioners have assaulted the defacto complainant.

¶13

The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and that they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and a false case has been foisted against them. He would further submit that the petitioners have given a complaint before the respondent police in Crime No.103 of 2021 against the defacto complainant and it is a case in counter. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶14

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

¶15

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there is a case in counter case in Crime No.103 of 2021 before the respondent police. He further submitted that there are no previous cases pending as against the petitioners. He would further submit that the injured person has been discharged from the hospital. However, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶16

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and that there is a case in counter and the injured person has been discharged from the hospital, this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

¶17

Accordingly, 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 on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Avinashi, on condition that the each of 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 this petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

¶18

[a] the petitioners 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.

¶19

[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent Police as and when required for interrogation.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

[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].

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

-sd/24/03/2021 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned

¶27

TRUE COPY

¶28

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.)
High Court, Madras - 600 104.
TO
1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,
AVINASHI.
2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
TIRUPPUR [FOR INFORMATION]
3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
AVINASHI POLICE STATION,
TIRUPPUR DISTRICT.
+1 CC to M/S.C.RAMKUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges
SR.No.3984
CRL OP.5778/2021
Date :24/03/2021
cs 30/03/2021

¶29

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

Rajendran v. the State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendran 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

Raja Vs the State Rep.by

B.Yamuna Vs State Rep.by Its

Ponnusamy Vs the Inspector of Police

Balan Vs State Rep.by

Sankar Vs State Rep by

C.Kumar Vs Statr by