Allowed

P.Sakthivel v. Inspector of Police

Madras HC12 May 2021CRL OP/8823/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed a criminal original petition under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail. The Court, noting the case was filed in counter and the injury was minor, granted bail subject to standard conditions including reporting to police and not tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners ordered to be released on bail in event of arrest subject to bond with sureties and reporting conditions.

P.Sakthivel Vs Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 12.05.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.8823 of 2021

¶6

P. Sakthivel

¶7

Suresh @ Chinnavan 3. Nehru @ Jawaharlal Nehru 4. Raghu 5. Kannan 6. Prasanth 7. Krishnamoorthi @ Krishnan 8. Arul 9. Painter Soundararajan @ Soundarapandian 10. Vijay 11. Paimoonchi @ Ramachandiran ... Petitioners Vs.

¶8

State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Velur Police Station, Paramathi Velur, Namakkal District. (Crime No.351 of 2021) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.351 of 2021 on the file of respondent police.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.M. Marimuthu For Respondent : Mr.T. Shunmugarajeswaran, Government Advocate O R D E R (The case has been heard through video conference)

¶10

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 307 of IPC and 3(1) of PDPP Act, in Crime No.351 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶11

2.The case of the prosecution is that there was a wordy quarrel in a temple festival between the petitioners and the defacto complainant's groups , as a result of which, the petitioners said to

¶12

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

¶13

have attacked the defacto complainant and caused injuries. Hence, the complaint was registered.

¶14

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the petitioners have given a complaint before the respondent police in Crime No.352 of 2021 against the defacto complainant and it is a case in counter. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶15

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that there is a case in counter in Crime No. 352 of 2021 have been registered by the respondent police. He further submitted that there are no previous case pending against the petitioners. He would further submit that the injured person is an out-patient. However, he vehemently opposed grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶16

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case that it is a case in counter and the injured person is an out-patient, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶17

6.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 of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi, Namakkal District, on condition that each of the petitioner shall execute a 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 and on further condition that:

¶18

(a) the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Court concerned 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 daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation,

¶20

¶21

(d) the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

¶22

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

¶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]; and;

¶24

(f) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

¶25

-sd/12/05/2021 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, PARAMATHI, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT. 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NAMAKKAL(FOR INFORMATION) 3 INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELUR POLICE STATION, PARAMATHI VELUR, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT. 4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶26

CC to M/S.M.MARIMUTHU Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.8823/2021 Date :12/05/2021

¶27

RVR 01/07/2021

¶28

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

P.Sakthivel v. Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Sakthivel v. Inspector of Police

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

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Dharmapuri Vs Duraisamy

S. Subramanian(Died) Vs Mrs Florence Chandran

M/S. United India Insuranc Co.Ltd., Vs K. Natarajan

V.Udayakumar Vs Inspector of Police

P.Vijayakumar Vs the Inspector of Police

Prabhakaran Vs State Rep.by