Allowed

Prabakaran v. State Rpe by the Inspector of Police

Madras HC6 Feb 2023CRL OP/1349/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras granted bail to five petitioners accused of waylaying, snatching, and intimidation. They had been in judicial custody for over 93 days. Bail was subject to a bond, residential confinement to Tirunelveli, daily reporting, and restrictions on tampering with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail with bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties, one being a blood relative, subject to conditions of confinement and reporting.

Prabakaran Vs State Rpe by the Inspector of Police — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.1349 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 06.02.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.1349 of 2023

¶7

Prabakaran, S/o. Palanisamy

¶8

Yuvaraj, S/o. Annadurai

¶9

Naveenkumar, S/o. Krishnan

¶10

Gowtham, S/o. Mani

¶11

Manimaran, S/o. Sambath

¶12

.. Petitioners

¶13

Vs.

¶14

State represented by The Inspector of Police, Sooramangalam Police Station, Salem Dt. (Crime No.687 of 2022) .. Respondent

¶15

1/7

¶16

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

¶17

Crl.O.P.No.1349 of 2023

¶18

PRAYER

¶19

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime No.687 of

¶20

2022 on the file of respondent police.

¶21

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Muthukoodalingam For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 04.11.2022 for the alleged offence under Sections 341, 392, 397 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. in Crime No.687 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.

¶24

The case of the prosecution is that on 03.11.2022 around 07.45 a.m., when the defacto complainant was going nearby New Imperial Ice company situated at Reddipatty to Mamangam Main Road, the petitioners said to have waylaid the defacto complainant at knife point and also snatched a sum of Rs.2,500/- and a cell phone from him and also criminally intimidated him. Hence, the complaint was registered against the petitioners.

¶25

2/7

¶26

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

¶27

Crl.O.P.No.1349 of 2023

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this is the second petition seeking for bail. He would submit that they have not at all committed any offence as alleged by the respondent police and they are no way connected with the offence. He would submit that they have been falsely implicated in this case for statistical purpose. He would also submit that earlier they were detained under Act 14 of 1982 and the same was revoked by the Government of Tamil Nadu vide order dated 21.12.2022. He would further submit that the investigation is almost completed and that the petitioners have been suffering incarceration for more than 93 days from 04.11.2022. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioners.

¶29

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for respondent would submit that all the petitioners are having five previous cases and the earlier order of detention was revoked by the Government vide an order dated 21.12.2022. He would submit that on the date of occurrence, they waylaid the defacto complainant and at knife point, snatched a sum of Rs.2,500/- and a cell phone from him and also 3/7

¶30

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

¶31

Crl.O.P.No.1349 of 2023

¶32

criminally intimidated him. He would also submit that if they are released on bail, they will tamper the witnesses and hamper the investigation and the investigation is almost completed. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioners.

¶33

Considering the above facts and circumstances, and also considering the fact that the investigation almost completed and the fact that the earlier order of detention was revoked by the Government vide order dated 21.12.2022 and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners subject to the following conditions:

¶34

Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each, in which one surety must be a blood surety, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Salem, and on further conditions that:

¶35

(a) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left

¶36

4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

Crl.O.P.No.1349 of 2023

¶38

Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar Card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity;

¶39

(b) the petitioners shall stay at Tirunelveli District and report before the Inspector of Police, Palayamkottai Police Station daily at 10.30 a.m. for period of six weeks;

¶40

¶41

(d) the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

¶42

(e) the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

¶43

(f) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial 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];

¶44

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

06.02.2023

rpp

5/7

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

¶49

Crl.O.P.No.1349 of 2023

¶50

¶51

The Judicial Magistrate No.2, Salem.

¶52

Inspector of Police, Sooramangalam Police Station, Salem Dt.

¶53

The Superintendent of Prison, Sub-Jail, Salem.

¶54

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

¶55

6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶56

Crl.O.P.No.1349 of 2023

¶57

T.V. THAMILSELVI, J.

¶58

rpp

¶59

Crl.O.P.No. 1349 of 2023

¶60

06.02.2023

¶61

7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Prabakaran v. State Rpe by the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabakaran v. State Rpe by 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

Kumari Vs Inspector of Police

Manikandan Vs the Inspector of Police

Mani @ Manikandan Vs the State Rep by the Inspector of Police

Kavitha Vs Inspector of Police

Subramani Vs State Rep.by

Prabakaran Vs State Rpe by the Inspector of Police