Allowed

Yosaphu v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC16 Sept 2022CRL OP(MD)/10157/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants anticipatory bail to multiple accused persons facing charges of property damage, assault, and criminal intimidation. The court imposed strict conditions including money deposit, surety bonds, and daily reporting to police.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; petitioners released on bail subject to money deposit, surety bond, daily reporting, and other conditions.

Yosaphu Vs The Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.10157 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Reserved on : 07/09/2022

¶4

Delivered on : 16/09/2022

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

The Hon`ble Mrs.Justice R.THARANI

¶7

CRL OP(MD). No.10157 of 2022

¶8

Yosaphu

¶9

Vethamani

¶10

Davidraja

¶11

Kabildev Reegan

¶12

Kovilmani

¶13

Jayaseli @ Jayaseela

¶14

Navamani ... Petitioners/Accused No.3,4,5,7,12 & 13

¶15

Vs.

¶16

The State rep.by, The Inspector of Police, Sayalkudi Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

¶17

Crime No.186 of 2022. ... Respondent

¶18

For Petitioners : M/s.Vishnu J,Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶19

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

¶20

PRAYER :-For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.186 of 2022 on the file of the Respondent police.

¶21

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶22

The petitioners/Accused, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 447, 427 and 506(ii) IPC, in Crime No. 186 of 2022, seek anticipatory bail.

¶23

The allegation against the petitioners is that the defacto complainant is working as Supervisor in “Campbeb Alkalish Limited Company”. On 30.05.2022, at about 9.30 am., while the defacto complainant was in the company, the petitioners damaged 4 bore wells and 7 motors and cable wires worth Rs.3,00,000/- and abused the defacto complainant and threatened him with dire consequence. A case in Crime No.186 of 2022, was registered against the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis petitioners.

¶24

1/3

¶25

CRL OP(MD). No.10157 of 2022

¶26

On the side of the petitioners, it is stated that the criminal case was registered against the petitioners, without conducting any preliminary enquiry. The petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the case and prayed the petitioners to be released on bail.

¶27

On the side of the petitioners, it is stated that the defacto complainant was running a salt factory, without any licence and that he encroahed the Kanmai. The petitioners sought for eviction and RTO enquiry was conducted. Only due to that motive, the defacto complainant lodged this false complaint against this petitioners, no damage was mentioned in the FI.R, bore well was not damaged and prayed the petitioners to be released on bail.

¶28

On the side of the intervenor, it is stated that the defacto complainant is having a salt factory in area of 20 Acres. The Government is running a salt factory in an extend of 100 Acres. The petitioners are continuously disturbing the defacto complainant. Already 4 F.I.R's were registered against the petitioners. A criminal case was registered against one Gunalan in Crime No.186 of 2022, he was arrested and released on bail. The first petitioner herein is the brother of said Gunalan. The petitioners used to demand money and threaten to file petitions as if the defacto complainant is encroahing. They repair the damaged pipe and the entire length of pipe has to be replaced, which caused Rs.8,00,000/to the defacto complainant and they damaged borewell.

¶29

On the side of the prosecution, it is stated that the encrochment was already removed by the Government. The damages alleged to have been caused is worth Rs.3,00,000/-. The petitioners damaged the Government lands, motors and pipes and the borewells and prayed the petition to be dismissed.

¶30

Considering the allegation levelled against the petitioner and considering the fact that all 3 cases are on the same occurrence, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners subject to the following conditions:

¶31

Accordingly, this petition is allowed and each of the petitioners shall deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) each to the credit of Crime No.186 of 2022, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kadaladi, Ramanathapuram District.

¶32

On such deposit, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail 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 learned Judicial Magistrate, Kadaladi, Ramanathapuram District and on further conditions that :

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

2/3

¶35

CRL OP(MD). No.10157 of 2022

¶36

(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;

¶37

(b) the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 am until further orders;

¶38

¶39

(d) the petitioners shall be present before the Court on hearing dates and before the respondent police as and when required; (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]; and;

¶40

(f) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

¶41

sd/16/09/2022 / TRUE COPY / /09/2022

¶42

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶43

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶44

¶45

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KADALADI, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶46

2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶47

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SAYALKUDI POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶48

4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶49

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶50

ORDER

¶51

¶52

CRL OP(MD) No.10157 of 2022 Date :16/09/2022

¶53

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis MK/VR/SAR.II/22.09.2022/3P/5C

¶55

3/3

Yosaphu v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yosaphu v. The Inspector of Police

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

M/S.New Grand Hotel Vs Shenbagam

Mookaiya Vs Shanmugam

Palanikumar Vs The Inspector of Police

M.Devasahayam Vs Elizabeth Stella Bai

Mathan Vs The Sub Inspector of Police

Davidraja Vs The Inspector of Police