Allowed

Saravanan v. The Sub Inspector of Police

Madras HC7 Sept 2022CRL OP(MD)/13583/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. Despite the petitioner having a prior case, bail was granted with strict conditions, noting that co-accused were already released on bail.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; Petitioner released on bail for Rupees 10,000 with two sureties on conditions including daily reporting to police for two weeks.

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

¶1

CRL OP(MD).No.13583 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶4

Date : 07/09/2022

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

The Hon`ble Mrs.Justice R.THARANI

¶7

CRL OP(MD).No.13583 of 2022

¶8

Saravanan

¶9

... Petitioner/Accused No.1

¶10

¶11

The State represented by The Sub Inspector of Police, Devakottai Taluk Police Station, Trichy City. (Crime No.128/22). ... Respondent/Complainant

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Rajeswaran, Advocate.

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.M.VAIKKAM KARUNANITHI, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶14

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

¶15

PRAYER :-

¶16

For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.128/2022 on the file of the Respondent Police.

¶17

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶18

The petitioner/Accused No.1, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 353 and 506(i)of IPC, in Cr.No.128 of 2022, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶19

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/A1 and other accused have threatened the defacto complainant and another driver, attacked them with hand and weapons and criminally https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis intimidated them, to drive the bus into their village. Hence a case

¶20

1/3

¶21

CRL OP(MD).No.13583 of 2022

¶22

has been registered against the petitioner and other two accused persons.

¶23

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner/A1 has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He has been falsely implicated in this case and pray the petitioner to be released on anticipatory bail.

¶24

4.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) submitted that there are three accused in this case. The second and third accused has already got anticipatory bail before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai. The first accused is having one previous case in the similar nature and pray the petition to be dismissed.

¶25

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, considering the nature of the offence and also the fact that the coaccused have been released on bail, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶26

6.Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or her appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai, 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 to the Police Officer, who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further conditions that:

¶27

(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;

¶28

(b)the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 am for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation.

¶29

(c)the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

¶30

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

¶31

(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 bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Court in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560]; and;

¶32

2/3

¶33

CRL OP(MD).No.13583 of 2022

¶34

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

sd/-

07/09/2022

/ TRUE COPY /

/09/2022

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

¶40

Madurai - 625 023. TO

¶41

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DEVAKOTTAI.

¶42

2 DO THROUGH: THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT.

¶43

3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE DEVAKOTTAI TALUK POLICE STATION, TRICHY CITY.

¶44

4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶45

+1 CC to M/s.K.RAJESHWARAN, Advocate ( SR-9812[I] dated 08/09/2022 ) ORDER

¶46

¶47

CRL OP(MD) No.13583 of 2022 Date :07/09/2022 pnn PKP/SBN/SAR-1/13.09.2022/3P/6C

¶48

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

¶49

3/3

Saravanan v. The Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saravanan v. The Sub 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

United India Insurance Vs S. Sridhar

M/S.United India Insurance Company Limited Vs S.Margret Rose

Velmurugan Vs The Inspector of Police

M.Malathi Vs Geethanjali

Thangiah Vs The Inspector of Police

Raja @ Rengarajan Vs The Inspector of Police