Allowed

Amuthakumar v. State Rep by

Madras HC19 May 2022CRL OP/12138/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal offline petition under Section 438 CrPC, the Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to three petitioners accused of offences including affray and criminal conspiracy. The Court imposed strict conditions, requiring daily reporting to police and prohibiting tampering with evidence or absconding, citing the victim's discharge from the hospital as a relevant factor.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to daily police reporting, execution of separate bond, and conditions against tampering with evidence or absconding.

Amuthakumar Vs State Rep by — Cheque Dishonour | 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.12138 of 2022

¶7

1 AMUTHAKUMAR [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED ]

2 ARAVINDHAN

3 PARAMESH

STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHEMMENCHEY POLICE STATION, CHENGALPATTU DISTRICT. IN CR.NO.112/2022.

¶12

For Petitioner : M/S.A.VENKATESAN Advocate

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶16

The petitioners who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 294[b], 323, 324, 506(ii) of I.P.C. in Crime No.112 of 2022, seek anticipatory bail.

¶17

The case of the prosecution is that there was a quarrel between the petitioners and the defacto complainant and it is alleged that the petitioners attacked the defacto complainant with knife and also abused him in unparliamentary words. Hence, the complaint.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Therefore, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶19

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners attacked the defacto complainant with knife and caused injuries. He would further submit that the injured has been discharged from the hospital. However, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶20

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

¶21

Considering the above fact and circumstances of the case and

¶22

also considering the fact that the victim discharged from the hospital, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

¶23

Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on

¶24

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-II, Alandhur, on condition that the petitioners 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:

¶25

[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.

¶26

[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.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

[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].

¶30

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

¶31

-sd/-

¶32

19/05/2022

¶33

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

¶34

TRUE COPY

¶35

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.)

¶36

High Court, Madras - 600 104.

¶37

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

¶38

¶39

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.II, ALANDHUR

¶40

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE CHENGALPATTU(FOR INFORMATION)

¶41

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHEMMENCHEY POLICE STATION, CHENGALPATTU DISTRICT.

¶42

4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶43

CC to M/S.A.VENKATESAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges Sr.7416

¶44

CRL OP.12138/2022 Date :19/05/2022

¶45

RVR 24/05/2022

¶46

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

Amuthakumar v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amuthakumar 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

Arun Vs State Rep by

Kalaiyarasan Vs State Rep by