Allowed

Kanagu v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC22 Mar 2021CRL OP(MD)/4158/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners accused of fighting, hurt, and annoyance to women, due to their elderly neighbor being discharged. Bail was granted on conditions including executing a bond and appearing for interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Orders release on bail with conditions including bond execution, appearance before police, non-tampering with evidence, and prohibition on absconding.

Kanagu Vs The Inspector of Police — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

CRL OP(MD)No.4158 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Date : 22/03/2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

CRL OP(MD)No.4158 of 2021

¶7

Kanagu

¶8

Selvi

¶9

Ramanan

¶10

Vishnu

¶11

Santhosh

¶12

Ajay

¶13

Amirtham

¶14

Devi ... Petitioners/Accused No.1,2 and 5 to 10

¶15

Vs-

¶16

State Rep.by The Inspector of Police, Singampunari Police Station, Singampunari, Sivagangai District. (Crime No.27/2021)

¶17

... Respondent/Complainant

¶18

For Petitioners: Mr.L.Ramesh,

¶19

Advocate.

¶20

For Respondent : Mr.M.V.Chandrasekaran, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶21

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

¶22

PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.27/2021 on the file of the respondent police.

¶23

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶24

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act, 2002 in Crime No.27 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶25

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners and the defacto complainant are neighbors. The petitioner's goat has entered into the house of the defacto complainant and grazed the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ plant. Hence, there was some dispute arose and the petitioners

¶26

1/3

¶27

CRL OP(MD)No.4158 of 2021

¶28

herein attacked the defacto complainant with wooden log. Hence, the complaint.

¶29

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶30

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), appearing for the respondent police submitted that the injured person has been discharged from the hospital.

¶31

5.Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the injured person has been discharged from the hospital, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

¶32

6.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or their appearance, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Singampuneri, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only)each with one surety each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent Police or to the Police Officer, who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

¶33

(a)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;

¶34

(b)the petitioners shall appear before the respondent Police as and when required for interrogation;

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

(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;

¶38

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

¶39

2/3

¶40

CRL OP(MD)No.4158 of 2021

¶41

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

¶42

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

¶43

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.

¶44

¶45

THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SINGAMPUNERI. 2. DO-THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT. 3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SINGAMPUNARI POLICE STATION, SINGAMPUNARI, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT. 4. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶46

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.4158 of 2021 Date :22/03/2021 GNS

¶47

MS/VR/26.03.2021/3P.5C

¶48

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

¶49

3/3

Kanagu v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanagu 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

Ganga Rani Vs The Inspector of Police

T.Gunasekaran Vs The Inspector of Police

Rajeshkumar Vs The Inspector of Police

Babu Vs The Inspector of Police

Barathan Vs The Inspector of Police

R.Venkatesan Vs R.Gnanasekaran