Allowed

Saravanan @ Sachin v. Inspector of Police

Madras HC10 May 2023CRL OP/10837/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Madras granted bail to the petitioner accused under Section 399 IPC and Arms Act, subject to specific reporting and surety conditions, finding further custody not required for investigation.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was granted bail on a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, required to report daily to the respondent police and not abscond or tamper with evidence.

Saravanan @ Sachin Vs Inspector of Police — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl OP No.10837 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 10.05.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

Crl.OP. No. 10837 of 2023

¶7

Saravanan @ Sachin ... Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State rep.by The Inspector of Police, B-3, Kanchi Taluk Police Station, Kanchipuram District. (Crime No.267 of 2023) ... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to release the petitioner on bail in Crime No.267 of 2023 on the file of the Respondent Police.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Saranraj

¶12

For Respondent :Mr.E.Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶13

Page 1 of 6

¶14

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

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

Crl OP No.10837 of 2023

¶17

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 10.04.2023 for the offence punishable under Section 399 of IPC, R/w Section 25(1)(a) of Arms Act , in Crime No.267 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶18

The case of the prosecution is that when the defacto complainant and along with other police officials were on routine check up on 10.04.2023, they found that petitioner along with other accused assembled near thorn bushes on Orikkai-Denmbakkam Road with deadly weapons and they were planning to commit dacoity.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case, since he has got some previous cases. He had also submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 10.04.2023. Hence, he seeks for grant of

¶20

bail to the petitioner.

¶21

Page 2 of 6

¶22

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

¶23

Crl OP No.10837 of 2023

¶24

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner submitted that, petitioner along with other accused with deadly weapons planned to commit dacoity. He further submitted that , apart from this case, there is no previous case pending against the petitioner. However, he vehemently opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶25

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the period of incarceration and that further custody of the petitioner is not required for investigation, this Court is inclined to grant bail on the following conditions;

¶26

(a) 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 learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kanchipuram.

¶27

[b] 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

Page 3 of 6

¶29

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

¶30

Crl OP No.10837 of 2023

¶31

[c] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at

¶32

10.30 a.m. until further orders.

¶33

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

¶34

trial.

¶35

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

¶36

[f] 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].

¶37

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

10.05.2023

sma/sha

Page 4 of 6

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

¶42

Crl OP No.10837 of 2023

¶43

Page 5 of 6

¶44

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

¶45

Crl OP No.10837 of 2023

SUNDER MOHAN, J

(sma)

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kanchipuram.

¶50

2.The Inspector of Police, B-3, Kanchi Taluk Police Station, Kanchipuram District.

¶51

3.Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai

¶52

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai

¶53

Crl.O.P.No. 10837 of 2023

¶54

10.05.2023

¶55

Page 6 of 6

¶56

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

Saravanan @ Sachin v. Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saravanan @ Sachin v. 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

V.Lakshmanan Vs B.Suresh Kumar

Sivakumar Vs State Rep.by

M/S Fishermans Fare Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. Vs M.S.Sadaq Ali

C.Shanthiseelan Vs The Inspector of Police

E.Ramesh Vs Superintendent of Police

K.Sakthivel Vs The Superintendent of Police