Allowed

Arumugam v. the State Rep by Its

Madras HC6 Jan 2022CRL OP/152/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal original petition under Section 438 CrPC, the High Court of Madras granted anticipatory bail to two petitioners facing charges under Section 379 IPC. The court imposed conditions including bond execution, financial deposit, reporting to police, and prohibitions on tampering with evidence or absconding.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners were released on bail with conditions: Rs.10,000 bond with sureties, Rs.20,000 deposit to CCA, weekly reporting, and no tampering with evidence.

Arumugam Vs the State Rep by Its — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 06.01.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶5

CRL.O.P.No.152 of 2022

1.Arumugam

2.Chandrasekar

... Petitioners

Versus

State represented by its The Inspector of Police, Namakkal Police Station, Namakkal District. (Crime No.2010 of 2021)

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.2010 of 2021 on the file of the respondent.

¶13

For Petitioners: Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi

¶14

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

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The petitioners, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences under Section 379 of IPC in Crime No.2010 of 2021, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶17

The case of the prosecution is that on the date of occurrence the defacto complainant getting a secret information along with respondent police were routine checkup at nearby Pommasamudram Agraharam, Kanavaipatti Illupai Marathottam Bus Stand, at the time one Tipper lorry was came upon that place, the respondent police stopped the vehicle and searched inside, it was possession of 3 units of Gravel without valid bill to the authority. On the same day the driver was arrested on his confession statement, he get Gravel was 2nd petitioner's land. Thereafter the defacto complainant seized the vehicle with Gravel. Hence the complaint.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner illegally transported 3 units of Gravel without permission and one previous case pending against the petitioner. However, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶21

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

¶22

Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their 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 - I, Namakkal, on condition that the petitioners 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:

¶23

[a] the petitioners are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/(Rupees Twnety Thousand only) to the credit of the Registered Advocate Clerk Association, Namakkal District within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and shall produce the said receipt before the Court below.

¶24

[b] 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

[c] the petitioners are directed to report before the respondent police on every Wednesday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

[f] 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 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].

¶30

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

¶31

-sd/-

¶32

06/01/2022

¶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.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

¶36

¶37

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.I, NAMAKKAL.

¶38

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NAMAKKAL DISTRICT. [FOR INFORMATION]

¶39

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NAMAKKAL POLICE STATION, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT.

¶40

4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶41

5 THE REGISTERED ADVOCATE CLERK ASSOCIATION, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT.

¶42

+1 CC to MR.W.CAMYLES GANDHI Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.284

¶43

CRL OP.152/2022

¶44

Date :06/01/2022 RW 11/01/2022

¶45

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

Arumugam v. the State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arumugam v. the State Rep by Its

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

Sridhar Vs the State Rep by

M.Iyappan Vs the State Rep by

P.Gopi Vs State Rep by