Allowed

Suresh Kumar v. the State Rep. by

Madras HC3 Jun 2021CRL OP/9211/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras allowed a Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail. The court observed a dispute relationship between complainants and petitioners and the absence of specific overt acts. Bail was granted subject to strict conditions including execution of bond, submission of photographs/Aadhar, and prohibitions on leaving the area, tampering with ev

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted anticipatory bail to be released on execution of bond with two sureties, subject to specific conditions including reporting, non-removal from place, and non-interference with evide

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 03.06.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTIC E R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.9211 of 2021

¶6

Sureshkumar ... Petitioners 2. Ramesh 3. Saravanakumar 4. Ranjeth Kumar

¶7

Vs. State represented by ... Respondent The Sub Inspector of Police, Veeranam Police Station, Salem District. (Crime No.228 of 2021) Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.228 of 2021 on the file of the Sub Inspector of Police, Veeranam Police Station, Salem District.

¶8

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Rajadurai
For Respondent : Mr.L.Baskaran
Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER

¶9

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 324 and 307 of IPC in Crime No.228 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶10

2.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that no specific overt act has been alleged in the FIR as against the petitioners.

¶11

A perusal of the FIR shows that the occurrence had taken place due to certain dispute between the petitioners and others. It is also seen that the defacto complainant and the petitioners are relatives.

¶12

In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the petitioners could be granted anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ before the learned Judicial Magistrate-IV, Salem within 15 days from

¶13

the date of resumption of regular hearings in the said Court subject to the following conditions:

¶14

[a] The petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each 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;

¶15

[b] 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;

¶16

[c] the petitioners shall not leave their present place till the investigation over;

¶17

[d] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation;

¶18

[e] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

¶19

[f] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

¶20

[g] 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

[h] if the accused persons thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

¶22

5.Considering the present situation, the petitioners are granted 15 days time to execute the bond and furnish sureties from the date of commencement of regular functioning of the court below. In the event of violation of any of the conditions, the anticipatory bail granted will stand automatically cancelled.

¶23

-sd/-

¶24

03/06/2021

¶25

This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned

¶26

TRUE COPY

¶27

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ High Court, Madras - 600 104.

¶28

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.IV, SALEM. 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SALEM. [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS. 4 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VEERANAM POLICE STATION, SALEM DISTRICT. CC to M/S. C.PRABAKARAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.9211/2021 Date :03/06/2021 TA-13/07/2021

¶29

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

Suresh Kumar v. the State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar 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

Nazeer Ahmed Vs State Rep. by

Hari Gopalakrishnan Nadar Vs State of Karnataka Rep.by

S.Ravichanadiran Vs State Rep. by Its

Kepl Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs Glory Industrial Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

M/S.Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd, Rep.by Its Senior Manager-Legal (South) Vs M/S.a.T.M.Constructions (P)Ltd., Represented by Its Director, Mr.Faiz Mohammed

A.Mohamed Irfan Vs the State of Tamil Nadu