Allowed

M. Muvinkumar v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC8 Apr 2022CRL OP(MD)/6371/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner apprehending arrest in Crime No.65 of 2022. The court imposed conditions including a deposit of Rs.10,000, a fine bond with two sureties, daily police reporting, and prohibitions on tampering with evidence or absconding.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on deposit of Rs.10,000 with a monetary bond of Rs.25,000 and two sureties; conditional on daily reporting and compliance with specific restrictions.

M. Muvinkumar Vs The Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶4

Date : 08.04.2022

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice K.MURALI SHANKAR

¶7

CRL OP(MD). No.6371 of 2022

¶8

M.Muvinkumar

¶9

... Petitioner/Accused No.2

¶10

¶11

State represented by The Inspector of Police, Ramanathapuram Town Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. (Crime No.65 of 2022)

¶12

... Respondent/Complainant

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Veerakumar, Advocate.

¶14

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

¶15

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. PRAYER :-

¶16

For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.65 of 2022 on the file of the Respondent police.

¶17

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶18

The petitioner/A.2, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 294(b), 429, 427 and 506(2) IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, in Crime No.65 of 2022, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶19

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and other accused abused the defacto complainant and also criminally intimidated her. Hence, the complaint.

¶20

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ alleged by the prosecution.

¶21

¶22

4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that the petitioner is having two previous cases, in which, one case for the offence 506(1) IPC.

¶23

5.Considering the above facts and circumstances and also the facts that no one was injured in the incident and that except the offences under Sections 506(2) IPC and 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, all other offences are bailable in nature, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶24

6.Accordingly, the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the credit of Government of Tamil Nadu, CMPRF in IOB, Secretariat Branch, Chennai-9 (Account No.11720 10000 00070, IFSC Code: IOBA0001172), without prejudice to his rights and contentions before the trial Court and produce the receipt/acknowledgment before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ramanathapuram.

¶25

7.On production of such receipt/acknowledgment, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ramanathapuram, on condition that the petitioner shall execute 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 Magistrate concerned and on further conditions that:

¶26

[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 Aadhaar card or bank pass book to ensure their identity.

¶27

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of one month and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation.

¶28

[c] the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

¶29

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

¶30

[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://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].

¶31

¶32

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

¶33

Sd/08/04/2022 / TRUE COPY /

¶34

/ /2022 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.I) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶35

CSM

¶36

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.

¶37

¶38

THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, RAMANATHAPURAM.

¶39

-DO- THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶40

THE INSECTOR OF POLICE, RAMANATHAPURAM TOWN POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT. 4. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. COPY TO:

¶41

THE OFFICER INCHARGE, CHIEF MINISTER PUBLIC RELIEF FUND, SECRETARIAT, CHENNAI-9.

¶42

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.6371 of 2022 Date :08/04/2022 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ SP/PN/SAR I/18/04/2022/3P/6C

M. Muvinkumar v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Muvinkumar 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

Rajasekar Vs The Inspector of Police

United Labour Federation, Vs Government of Tamil Nadu

M.Kalavathi Vs The Commissioner

Vasantha Rejesh Vs The Inspector of Police

Periyamaruthu Vs The Inspector of Police

T.Krishnasamy, Vs the Presiding Officer