Allowed

Ajay v. the State Rep. by

Madras HC14 Jun 2021CRL OP/8448/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case involving assault and criminal conspiracy. Previous bail had been rejected due to the petitioner being a 'rowdy element'. This court noted investigation was nearly complete and co-accused were on bail, imposing strict conditions

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail subject to bond of Rs. 10,000, two sureties, daily police appearance for three weeks, and other standard conditions.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 14.06.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.8448 of 2021

¶6

Ajay

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State represented by Inspector of Police, Vellore South Police Station, Vellore District. (Crime No.10 of 2021) .. Respondent

¶9

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.10 of 2021 pending investigation on the file of the Respondent.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Sathish Kumar For Respondent : Mr.L.Baskaran G.A.(Crl.Side) - - - - -

¶11

O R D E R (The case has been heard through video conference)

¶12

This is the second anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner/A4, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police in connection with a case registered in Crime No.10 of 2021, for the alleged offence under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 307 and 506(ii) of IPC .

¶13

The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with other accused purchased some snacks in the shop of the defacto complainant and failed to pay the amount and when the same was questioned by the defacto complainant, the petitioner and other accused attacked the defacto complainant and caused serious injuries to him. Hence, the complaint.

¶14

Earlier, this Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner on 18.03.2021, considering the fact that the petitioner is a rowdy element and he has three previous cases pending against him.

¶15

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

¶16

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that totally there were five accused and the petitioner is A4. All the co-accused were arrested and released on bail except A1 who was detained under the Goondas Act. The allegation against the petitioner is that he only threatened the defacto complainant. He further submitted that the investigation is almost over and that this is the second anticipatory bail application.

¶17

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) strongly opposed the granting of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. He submitted that the earlier anticipatory bail application moved by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on 18.03.2021, in Crl.O.P.No.1201 of 2021.

¶18

Hear both sides.

¶19

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that the co-accused were arrested and released on bail and the investigation is almost over, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:

¶20

(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 Judicial Magistrate No.1, Vellore, 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:

¶21

(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.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

(f) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner 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].

¶27

(g) If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

¶28

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

¶29

-sd/14/06/2021 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 JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, VELLORE. 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE VELLORE [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELLORE SOUTH POLICE STATION, VELLORE DISTRICT. 4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS. CC to M/S.M.SATHISH KUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges

¶30

CRL OP.8448/2021 Date :14/06/2021 MK:12/07/2021

¶31

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

Ajay v. the State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay 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

Nandhakumar Vs State

S.Arumugam Vs State Rep by

Rangarajan Vs the State by

V.Sekar Vs The Chief Secretary

P.Manikandan Vs State Rep by Its

M.Sivagami Vs The District Collector