Allowed

Sridhar v. the State Rep by

Madras HC6 Jan 2022CRL OP/113/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a criminal case involving public nuisance and intentional hurt. The court imposed bail conditions including a monetary deposit, sureties, police reporting, and restrictions on tampering with evidence or absconding.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was ordered released on bail subject to deposit of Rs.10,000, execution of bonds with sureties, reporting to police, and adherence to conditions regarding evidence and conduct.

Sridhar Vs the State Rep by — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 06.01.2022

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.113 of 2022

Sridhar

.. Petitioner

Vs.

The State Rep.by Inspector of Police Velampalayam Police Station, Tiruppur District. Crime No.1808 of 2021 ...Respondent

¶10

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.1808 of 2021 which is pending on the file of the Velampalayam Police Station, Tiruppur District.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Ganesh Pandian

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.N.S.Suganthan, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Section 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.1808 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶15

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with others were drinking brandy in front of the defacto complainant's house, the same was questioned by the defacto complainant, due to which, the petitioner along with two others abused him in filthy language, assaulted him with brandy bottles, threatened him with dire consequences, thereby, the defacto complainant had sustained head injuries. Hence, the complaint.

¶16

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. However, on instructions, he submits that the petitioner without

¶17

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

¶18

prejudice to his rights,on his own volition, is ready to deposit a sum Rs.10,000/- to the credit of Crime No.1808 of 2021. Hence, the learned counsel prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶19

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submits that the injured had sustained head injuries and 8 stiches were done on his head and discharged from the hospital.

¶20

Considering the fact that the injured has discharged from the hospital and also the fact that the petitioner is ready to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the credit of Crime No.1808 of 2021, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶21

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days after lifting of lockdown or the commencement of the Court's normal functioning whichever is earlier, before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court - III, Tiruppur on condition that the petitioners shall execute separate bonds 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 condition that:

¶22

[a] the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/(Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the credit of Crime No.1808 of 2021 before the concerned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days after lifting of lockdown or the commencement of the Court's normal functioning whichever is earlier and on such deposit, the defacto complainant is permitted to withdraw the said deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- on proper identification and acknowledgment;

¶23

[b] the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Court concerned may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

¶24

[c] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police on Wednesday at 10.30a.m for a period of four weeks and thereafter as and when required for an interrogation;

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶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 has been imposed and the petitioner is 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;

¶29

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

¶30

-sd/-

¶31

06/01/2022

¶32

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

¶33

TRUE COPY

¶34

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

¶35

¶36

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.III, TIRUPPUR.

¶37

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TIRUPPUR. [FOR INFORMATION]

¶38

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELAMPALAYAM POLICE STATION, TIRUPPUR DISTRICT.

¶39

4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶40

CC to MR.C.GANESH PANDIAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges

¶41

CRL OP.113/2022

¶42

Date :06/01/2022 RW 20/01/2022

¶43

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

Sridhar v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sridhar 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

G.Karthik Vs State Rep by

Ramesh Vs the State Rep by

V.Maranmathy Vendarasi Vs State Rep by

M.Iyappan Vs the State Rep by

P.Gopi Vs State Rep by

Arumugam Vs the State Rep by Its