Allowed

Arun v. State Rep by

Madras HC19 May 2022CRL OP/12093/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal original petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Madras granted bail to the petitioner accused of offences under Sections 294(b), 307 IPC, and Section 3 TNPPDL Act, subject to specific reporting and non-tampering conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail subject to conditions: execution of bond, daily reporting for two weeks, no tampering with evidence or absconding, and furnishing photographs and identity proofs.

Arun Vs State Rep by — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Thursday, the Nineteenth day of May Two Thousand Twenty Two

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.12093 of 2022

¶7

ARUN [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]

¶8

¶9

STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERIYAPALAYAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT (CRIME NO.113/2022)

¶10

[ RESPONDENT ]

¶11

For Petitioner : M/S P.JAYACHANDRAN Advocate

¶12

For Respondent : M/S.A.DAMODARAN, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶13

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

¶14

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶15

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 307 I.P.C. and Sec. 3 of TNPPDL Act, in Crime No.113 of 2022 on the file of respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶16

The case of the prosecution is that on the date of occurrence, as the petitioner demanded snacks, which are not available in the defacto complainant's shop, quarrel ensued between them, and the petitioner alleged to have assaulted the defacto complainant with hands and also abused him in filthy language. Hence, the complaint.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Therefore, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶18

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

¶19

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the injured was treated as outpatient and discharged from the hospital. However, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶20

Considering the above fact and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the injured discharged from the hospital, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶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 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthukottai 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, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

¶22

[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.

¶23

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation.

¶24

[c] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

¶25

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

¶26

[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].

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

-sd/-

¶30

19/05/2022

¶31

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

¶32

TRUE COPY

¶33

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

¶34

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, UTHUKOTTAI.

¶35

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE THIRUVALLUR. [FOR INFORMATION]

¶36

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

¶37

4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶38

+1 CC to M/S P.JAYACHANDRAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO. 7313

¶39

CRL OP.12093/2022

¶40

Date :19/05/2022 RW-20/05/2022

¶41

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

Arun v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun 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

Ayalraj Vs State Rep by

A.Dinesh Babu Vs State Rep.by

S.Masthan Vs State Rep by

Kamaraj Vs State Rep by

Amuthakumar Vs State Rep by

Kalaiyarasan Vs State Rep by