Allowed

S. Abbas v. The Sub Inspector of Police

Madras HC20 Apr 2022CRL OP(MD)/7302/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to accused persons seeking relief for offences under Sections 147, 427, 448, and 379 IPC arising from an altercation involving trespass and theft allegations within a family dispute.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail in event of arrest or appearance within fifteen days, executing bond of Rs. 25,000 each with two sureties for same sum.

S. Abbas Vs The Sub Inspector of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.7302 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 20.04.2022 PRESENT

¶3

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice K.MURALI SHANKAR CRL OP(MD). No.7302 of 2022

¶4

S.Abbas

¶5

S.Rabeek

¶6

S.Bairose ... Petitioners/Accused 1to3

¶7

¶8

State represented by its The Sub-Inspector of Police, (B5) South Gate Police Station, Madurai.

¶9

(Crime No.131 of 2022) ... Respondent/Complainant

¶10

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Balamohan, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.R.Sivakumar, Government Advocate (Crl. Side). For Defacto Complainant : Mr.S.Ramasamy, Advocate

¶11

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

¶12

PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.131 of 2022 on the file of the Respondent police.

¶13

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶14

The petitioners/A.1 to A.3, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 427, 448 and 379 IPC, in Crime No.131 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶15

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners trespassed into the defacto complainant's house and stolen the property. Hence, the complaint.

¶16

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that there existed family dispute between the parties and hence, they have foisted the above case.

¶17

4.Mr.S.Ramasamy, learned counsel appears on behalf of the defacto complainant would submit that the petitioners had break up the lock and trespassed into the defacto complainant's property and taken away Rs.15,000/- and some household articles.

¶18

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

¶19

1/3

¶20

CRL OP(MD). No.7302 of 2022

¶21

5.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that no one was injured in the incident.

¶22

6.Considering the facts that there existed family dispute between the parties, that no one was injured in the incident, that except the offence under Section 379 IPC, all other offences are bailable in nature and that the petitioners are not having any previous cases for similar offence or property offence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

¶23

7.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.4, Madurai, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further conditions that:

¶24

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

¶25

[b] the petitioners 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.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

[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].

¶29

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

sd/-

20/04/2022

/ TRUE COPY /

/ /2022

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

¶35

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

¶36

2/3

¶37

CRL OP(MD). No.7302 of 2022

¶38

CSM

¶39

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.

¶40

¶41

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.IV, MADURAI.

¶42

2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI.

¶43

3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

¶44

(B5) SOUTH GATE POLICE STATION, MADURAI.

¶45

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

¶46

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.7302 of 2022 Date :20/04/2022 SS/PN/SAR:IV/26.04.2022 : 3P/5C

¶47

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

¶48

3/3

S. Abbas v. The Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Abbas 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

Ganapathy Vs The Inspector of Police

A. Nagarajan Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police

V.Tamil Selvan Vs Inspector General of Registration

Raja Vs The Inspector of Police

S.Vasudevan Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

C.Samraj (Deceased), Vs the Government of Puducherry