Allowed

Samuel v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC6 Sept 2021CRL OP(MD)/11407/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who was the sole accused in a counter case involving IPC sections 294(b), 307, and 506(ii). The order imposed specific conditions, including daily police reporting and execution of a bail bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner Granted Anticipatory Bail to appear before Magistrate within 15 days on execution of bond with sureties.

Samuel Vs The Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.11407 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 06.09.2021 PRESENT

¶3

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice B.PUGALENDHI

¶4

CRL OP(MD). No.11407 of 2021

¶5

Samuel ... Petitioner/Sole Accused

¶6

Vs The State rep.by, The Inspector of Police, Nazareth Police Station, Thoothukudi District. (In Crime No.140 of 2021) ... Respondent/Complainant

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vikram, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.P.Kottaichamy,

¶8

Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶9

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C

¶10

PRAYER :-For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.140 of 2021 on the file of the respondent Police.

¶11

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶12

The petitioner/Sole accused apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 307 and 506(ii) IPC in crime No.140 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶13

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 22.07.2021 at 09.30 p.m., there was a wordy quarrel arose between the petitioner and the de-facto complainant, the petitioner attacked the de-facto complainant with aruval and also abused him in filthy language. Thereby, the de-facto complainant sustained injury. Hence, the complaint.

¶14

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent, he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution, but he has been falsely implicated in this case.

¶15

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent, on instructions, submits that it is a counter case and both the parties are absconding.

¶16

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ nature of allegation made against the petitioner and also the fact

¶17

1/3

¶18

CRL OP(MD). No.11407 of 2021

¶19

that it is a counter case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶20

6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Sathankulam, Thoothukudi District on condition that 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 learned Magistrate concerned and on further conditions that:

¶21

(a)the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the learned Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhaar card or bank pass book to ensure their identity;

¶22

(b)the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.

¶23

(c)the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

¶24

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

¶25

(e)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 petitioner 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;

¶26

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

¶27

/ TRUE COPY /

¶28

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

¶29

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶30

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

¶31

2/3

¶32

CRL OP(MD). No.11407 of 2021

¶33

¶34

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SATHANKULAM, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT.

¶35

2 DO-THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT.

¶36

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE NAZARETH POLICE STATION, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT.

¶37

4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶38

SJI

¶39

MK/JM/SAR.III/20.09.2021/3P/5C

¶40

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

¶41

3/3

Samuel v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samuel v. The 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

Thangapandi Vs The Inspector of Police

Ganesh Nehru Vs Inspector of Police

Gowsalya Devi Vs Inspector of Police

Durai Raj Vs The Inspector of Police

Santhana muthu Vs The Inspector of Police

Marithai Vs The Inspector of Police