Allowed

Veerapandi @ Sivakumar v. State Rep by

Madras HC12 Jan 2022CRL OP/45/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants anticipatory bail to five petitioners facing charges of affray, Hindrance to Police, Obscene Act, Voluntarily Causing Hurt and Attempt to Murder. The court imposed conditions including appearance before the magistrates, regular police reporting, cooperation with investigation, and restrictions on tampering with evidence or absconding.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners ordered to be released on bail on execution of bond with two sureties and compliance with specific reporting and investigation conditions.

Veerapandi @ Sivakumar Vs State Rep by — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 12.01.2022

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.45 of 2022

¶6

1.Veerapandi @ Sivakumar

¶7

...Petitioners

¶8

Naveen Kumar @ Naveen

¶9

Ramesh

¶10

Balaji

¶11

Sathish @ Sathishkumar

¶12

Versus

¶13

The State; Represented by; The Inspector of Police, Erumapatty Police Station, Namakkal District. (Crime No.670 of 2021) ...Respondent

¶14

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.670 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police.

¶15

For Petitioners : Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi

¶16

For Respondent : Mr.A. Gokulakrishnan

¶17

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 324 and 307 IPC in Crime No.670 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶20

The case of the prosecution is that there was some previous enmity and wordy quarrel between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. Subsequently, the petitioners/accused assaulted the defacto complainant with weapons. Hence this complaint.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any

¶22

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

¶23

offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶24

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police submitted that the petitioners/accused had assaulted the de-facto complainant on head, neck and hand, was sustained grievous injuries. Now, the victim was discharged from the hospital. Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶25

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by both counsels, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶26

Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered 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, Senthamangalam, 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 and on further condition that:

¶27

[a] the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Court concerned may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

¶28

[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police on every Tuesday and Saturday at 10.30 a.m. until further orders.

¶29

[c] the petitioners shall co-operate for the investigation;

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

[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 has been imposed and the petitioners are released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court themselves as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560]; and;

¶33

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

¶34

[g] if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC;

¶35

-sd/-

¶36

12/01/2022 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY

¶37

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

¶38

¶39

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SENTHAMANGALAM, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT.

¶40

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NAMAKKAL [FOR INFORMATION]

¶41

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

¶42

4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶43

+1CC to M/S. W.CAMYLES GANDHI Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.No.715

CRL OP.45/2022

Date :12/01/2022

CSK 25/01/2022

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

Veerapandi @ Sivakumar v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veerapandi @ Sivakumar 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

K.Pandiyan Vs the State Rep.by

B.Vengatapathi Vs the State Rep by

Gandhimathi Vs State Rep by

Vasudevan Vs the State Rep.by

Logesh Vs State Rep by

R.Sanjai Vs State Rep by