Allowed

Elumalai v. State Rep by

Madras HC10 Jan 2022CRL OP/124/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to a petitioner falsely implicated in a theft case under Section 379 IPC. The court imposed strict conditions including regular police reporting, surety bond execution, and prohibitions against tampering with evidence or absconding.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail in event of arrest with conditions: bond Rs.10,000/- with two sureties, report police every Tuesday, no tampering or absconding.

Elumalai Vs State Rep by — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 10.01.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶5

CRL.O.P.No.124 of 2022

¶6

Elumalai ... Petitioner / A4

¶7

Versus

¶8

State, represented by The Inspector of Police, Kandhikuppam Police Station, Krishnagiri District. (Crime No.435 of 2020) ... Respondent

¶9

Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in the Crime No.435 of 2020 pending on the file of the respondent police.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jayachandran

¶11

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

¶12

¶13

ORDER

¶14

(The case has been heard through video conference)

¶15

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Section 379 of IPC in Crime No.435 of 2020, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶16

The case of the prosecution is that on 09.01.2021, the petitioner and other accused persons have stolen the defacto complainant's two wheelers (2 Nos) which was parking in front of his house. Hence this case.

¶17

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, the learned counsel prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶18

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

¶19

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that there are totally four accused and the petitioner is A4 in this case and the stolen two wheeler (2 Nos) were recovered from the accused persons. He would further submit that A1 to A3 were arrested and released on bail and based on the confession of the co-accused persons the petitioner was implicated in this case and ranked as A4. He would further submit that there is no previous case pending against the petitioner. However, the learned counsel vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶20

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶21

Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days after lifting of lock down or the commencement of the Court's normal functioning whichever is earlier, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Krishnagiri, 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 is directed to report before the respondent police on every Tuesday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;

¶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 anticipatory 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

7.With the above directions, the Criminal Original Petition is ordered accordingly.

¶30

-sd/-

¶31

10/01/2022

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

¶35

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.I, KRISHNAGIRI.

¶36

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT [FOR INFORMATION]

¶37

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANDHIKUPPAM POLICE STATION, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT.

¶38

4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶39

CC to M/S M.JAYACHANDRAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges

CRL OP.124/2022

Date :10/01/2022

CSK 21/01/2022

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

Elumalai v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Elumalai 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

R.Saravanan @ Ragu Vs State Rep by

S.Pushparaja Vs the State Rep by

Babu Vs the State Rep by

Parthiban @Jagan Vs Inspector of Police

Samuvel Vs the State Rep by

Sakthivel Vs the State Rep by