Allowed

Mohamed Farook v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC6 Oct 2022CRL OP(MD)/17690/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the petitioner sought release in a case involving offences under IPC Sections 294(b), 324, 307, and 506(ii). Considering the advanced stage of investigation and the period of incarceration, the court granted bail subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be released on bail on executing a bond of Rs.25,000 with two sureties, subject to six specific conditions including reporting and not tampering with evidence.

Mohamed Farook Vs The Inspector of Police — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.17690 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 06/10/2022 PRESENT

¶3

The Hon`ble Mrs.Justice T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶4

CRL OP(MD). No.17690 of 2022

¶5

Mohamed Farook

¶6

... Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs

¶7

The State rep.by The Inspector of Police, Achanputhur Police Station, Tenkasi District. Crime No. 182 of 2022. ... Respondent/Complainant

¶8

For Petitioner : M/s.RAJKUMAR P, Advocate.

¶9

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

¶10

PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C.

¶11

PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No. 182 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police.

¶12

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶13

The petitioner/ sole Accused, who was arrested and remanded judicial custody on 15.09.2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b),324,307 and 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.182 of 2022, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶14

2.The case of the prosecution is that due to some wordy quarrel the petitioner herein abused the defacto complainant using filthy language and attacked him with aruval, caused injuries and also criminally intimidated him. Hence the case came to be registered.

¶15

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submits that the petitioner is in judicial custody from 15.09.2022, hence he seeks bail.

¶16

4.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) appearing for the respondent submits that the investigation is almost completed.

¶17

5.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the investigation is almost https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

1/2

¶19

CRL OP(MD). No.17690 of 2022

¶20

completed and also taking into consideration the period of incarceration, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions.

¶21

6.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Shencottah. (i)the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate/concerned court may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity;

¶22

(ii)the petitioner shall report before the respondent police on every Monday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of eight weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

¶23

(iii)the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness;

¶24

(iv)the petitioner shall not abscond during trial;

¶25

(v)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 Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].

sd/-

06/10/2022

/ TRUE COPY /

06/10/ 2022

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

¶31

¶32

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SHENCOTTAH.

¶33

2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TENKASI DISTRICT.

¶34

3 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL JAIL, PALAYAMKOTTAI.

¶35

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ACHANPUTHUR POLICE STATION, TENKASI DISTRICT.

¶36

5 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶37

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶38

+2. CC to M/S.RAJKUMAR P Advocate SR.No.10925, 11005

¶39

ORDER IN

¶40

CRL OP(MD) No.17690 of 2022 Date :06/10/2022

¶41

AAV

¶42

SA/SVR/SAR.4/06.10.2022/2P/8C

¶43

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

¶44

2/2

Mohamed Farook v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohamed Farook 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

K.K. Karthick Kumar @ Karthick Vs The Inspector of Police

K.K. Saravanan Vs The Inspector of Police

J.Shantha Vs Gowri

Karuppasamy Vs The Inspector of Police

Pandi Vs The Inspector of Police

Sekar Vs The Inspector of Police