Allowed

Kamaraj v. State Rep by

Madras HC19 May 2022CRL OP/12113/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras granted anticipatory bail to four petitioners facing charges under various IPC sections for a family dispute altercation. The court emphasized conditions including daily police reporting, execution of a bond with sureties, non-absconding, and prohibition from tampering with evidence. Failure to comply mandates dismissal.

What did the court decide?

Anton wary bail granted subject to sufficient bond with sureties, daily police reporting for two weeks, and strict compliance with conditions prohibiting tampering and absconding.

Kamaraj Vs State Rep by — Anticipatory Bail | 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.12113 of 2022

¶7

1 KAMARAJ [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED ]

2 VINOTHINI

3 SURESH @ SUGESH

4 SUBRAMANI

STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MAILAM POLICE STATION, VILLUPURAM DISTRICT (CRIME NO.92/2022)

¶13

For Petitioner : M/S.R.RAMESH Advocate

¶14

For Respondent : M/S. A.DAMODARAN, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶17

The petitioners who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 448, 323, 324, 427 & 506(ii) of IPC, in Crime No.92 of 2022, seek anticipatory bail.

¶18

The case of the prosecution is that on 06.02.2022, due to family dispute, there was a quarrel between the petitioners and the defacto complainant and it is alleged that the petitioners attacked the defacto complainant with wooden log and also abused him in unparliamentary words. Hence, the complaint.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submits that the petitioner were already granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.4559 of 2022 dated 04.03.2022. However, due to illness, the petitioners were not surrendered before the trial Court and failed to execute sureties. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶20

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

¶21

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioners attacked the defacto complainant and the injured has been treated as an out patient in the Government hospital. However, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶22

Considering the above fact and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that earlier this Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

¶23

Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Thindivanam, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a separate 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:

¶24

[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.

¶25

[b] the petitioners 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.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

[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].

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

-sd/19/05/2022 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY

¶32

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104. TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.I, THINDIVANAM 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE VILLUPURAM(FOR INFORMATION) 3 INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MAILAM POLICE STATION, VILLUPURAM DISTRICT 4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS. CC to M/S.R.RAMESH Advocate on payment of necessary charges Sr.7503 CRL OP.12113/2022 Date :19/05/2022 RVR 24/05/2022

¶33

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

Kamaraj v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamaraj 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

Arun Vs State Rep by

Amuthakumar Vs State Rep by

Kalaiyarasan Vs State Rep by