Allowed

M.Raman v. The Sub Inspector of Police

Madras HC23 Jun 2021CRL OP(MD)/8147/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case involving alleged theft and mischief under IPC sections 379, 381, and 269, imposing stringent conditions including daily reporting and a deposit with the Advocate Clerk's Welfare Association.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail conditioned upon executing a bond, appointing sureties, depositing Rs. 5,000 with the Advisory Clerk's Welfare Association, and reporting daily to police.

M.Raman Vs The Sub Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶4

Date : 23/06/2021

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

¶7

CRL OP(MD). No.8147 of 2021

¶8

M.Raman ... Petitioner/4^th Accused

¶9

¶10

The State rep by The Sub Inspector of Police, Taluk Police Station, Dindigul, Dindigul District, (Crime No.636 of 2021) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.Selvkumar.S., Advocate.

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

PRAYER :-

¶14

For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.636 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police.

¶15

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶16

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 379, 381 and 269 of IPC in Crime No.636 of 2021, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶17

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 29.05.2021, at about 10.00 p.m., when the Securities of the TASMAC Godown situated in Dindigul-Trichy Road at Mullipaadi Village, namely R.Elangoven and P.Subbiramani were on duty, they found the boxes with liquor bottles were kept open on the top and bottom of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-19-Y-4201. On seeing the securities, the accused escaped from the scene of occurrence. The value of the liquor bottles is worth of Rs.11,520/-. Therefore, this case came to be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ registered.

¶18

¶19

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that A1 and A2 have been arrested and released on bail and the properties have been recovered.

¶20

4.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) appearing for the respondent police opposed this petition on the ground that the investigation is not completed. However, he concedes that the properties have been recovered and the co-accused have been arrested and released on bail.

¶21

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the properties have been recovered and the co-accused have been arrested and released on bail, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶22

6.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 Additional Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul, 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further conditions that:

¶23

[a] the petitioner 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;

¶24

[b] the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/(Rupees Five Thousand only) to the credit of Advocate Clerk's Welfare Association, Madurai-625 023 (Indian Bank Savings Account No.496039124, IFSC Code: IDIB000H040), within a period of two weeks without prejudice to his rights and contentions before the trial Court;

¶25

[c] the petitioner shall report before respondent police daily, at 10.30 am., until further orders;

¶26

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

¶27

[e] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

¶28

[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 petitioner released on bail by the learned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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].

¶29

¶30

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

23/06/2021

¶33

/ TRUE COPY /

¶34

/ /2021 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶35

¶36

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.

¶37

TO 1. THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, DINDIGUL. 2. DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TALUK POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL, DINDIGUL DISTRICT, 4. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. COPY TO THE OFFICER INCHARGE, ADVOCATE CLERK'S WELFARE ASSOCIATION, MADURAI-625 023 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.8147 of 2021 Date :23/06/2021

¶38

VB/VR/SAR.II/28.06.2021/3P/6C

¶39

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

M.Raman v. The Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Raman v. The Sub 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

S.Karthikai Sami Vs the Superintendent of Police

M.Vincent Mathew Vs the Inspector of Police

Uma Nachiyar Vs The Inspector of Police

C.Murugan @ Thavalai Murugan Vs The Sub Inspector of Police

Packiyaraj Vs The Inspector of Police

Palaniyarasu @ Palani Arasu Vs The Inspector of Police