Allowed

Vasanth v. State Rep by

Madras HC11 May 2022CRL OP/11153/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner seeking protection against arrest for alleged offences of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, obscene acts, and voluntarily causing hurt, in conjunction with the TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. The court noted no injuries were sustained.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail on execution of personal bond for Rs. 25,000 subject to conditions including not tampering with evidence, reporting to police, and not absconding.

Vasanth Vs State Rep by — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Wednesday, the Eleventh day of May Two Thousand Twenty Two

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice V. SIVAGNANAM

¶6

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.11153 of 2022

¶7

VASANTH [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]

¶8

¶9

STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELLAVEDU POLICE STATION, THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT. (CRIME NO.170/2022)

¶10

For Petitioner : M/S.MOHAMED AASIF Advocate

¶11

For Respondent : MR.S.SUGENDRAN,Additional Public Prosecutor

¶12

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

¶13

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶14

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences under sections 448, 294(b) & 323 of IPC r/w Section 4 TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 in Crime No.170 of 2022, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶15

The case of the prosecution is that due to petty quarrel between the daughters of both the petitioner and the defacto complainant, the petitioner was alleged to have verbally abused the defacto complainant and slapped the defacto complainant's daughter. Hence, a complaint has been lodged before the respondent police.

¶16

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he pleads for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶17

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police submitted that no one sustained injuries in this case.

¶18

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

¶19

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking note of the fact that no one has sustained injury, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary in this case and hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶20

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 Judicial Magistrate – II, Poonamallee, on condition that the petitioner shall execute his own bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) 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:

¶21

(a) the petitioner shall affix his photograph and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Court concerned may obtain a copy of his Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure his identity;

¶22

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

¶23

(c)the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police as and when required for interrogation;

¶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 has 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 thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

¶27

-sd/-

¶28

11/05/2022

¶29

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

¶30

TRUE COPY

¶31

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

¶32

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

¶33

¶34

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-II, POONAMALLEE.

¶35

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TIRUVALLUR [FOR INFORMATION]

¶36

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELLAVEDU POLICE STATION, THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT.

¶37

4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶38

+1CC to M/S.MOHAMED AASIF Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.No.6940

CRL OP.11153/2022

Date :11/05/2022

CSK 13/05/2022

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

Vasanth v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasanth v. 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

Senthurpandi Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police

Thangapandi Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police

M.Manickam Vs The Inspector of Police

S.Ramesh Vs State Rep by

S.Ramesh Vs State Rep by

Prabakaran Vs the State Rep by Its