Dismissed

K.Rajendran v. State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC14 Dec 2023CRL OP/19269/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition seeking cancellation of bail granted to an accused in a theft case. The Court accepted the accused's undertaking not to interfere with witnesses, directing that the affidavit be filed with the lower court, and disposed of the matter accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The petition for cancellation of bail was dismissed; the accused's undertaking was recorded and a direction to file an affidavit with the lower court was issued.

K.Rajendran Vs State of Tamilnadu — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.19269 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 14.12.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.19269 of 2023

¶7

K. Rajendran ... Petitioner / Defacto complainant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Kannankurichi Police Station, Salem. ... 1^st Respondent / Complainant

¶10

2.R. Silambarasan ... 2^nd Respondent / Accused

¶11

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 439(2) of

¶12

Cr.P.C., prayed to cancel the bail granted to the 2^nd respondent / Accused by

¶13

the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Salem in Crl.M.P.No.3078 of 2023

¶14

dated 18.04.2023.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. S. Karthikeyan For R1 : Mr. R. Vinothraja, Govt. Advocate (Criminal Side) For R2 : Mr. T. Balachandran

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/6

¶17

Crl.O.P.No.19269 of 2023

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This petition has been filed by the defacto complainant seeking interference and cancellation of the order granting bail to the 2^nd respondent herein / accused in Crime No.218 of 2023 registered by the 1^st respondent. The bail was granted by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Salem, in Crl.M.P.No.3078 of 2023 by an order dated 18.04.2023.

¶20

2.It must be stated that FIR in Crime No.218 of 2023 had been registered under Sections 381 and 506(ii) of IPC. The 2^nd respondent had been remanded to judicial custody on 01.04.2023. It had been alleged that he had committed a theft of Rs.31,000/- from the Petrol Bunk. On consideration of the facts and circumstances, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Salem by an order dated 18.04.2023 had granted bail in Crl.M.P.No.3078 of 2023. The normal conditions, that the petitioner shall execute bond and produce sureties and that he should appear before the respondent and co-operate during the course of investigation process and would not commit similar offences and more particularly, shall not tamper with the evidence and shall not make any inducement, threat or promise to any person so as to dissuade

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6

¶22

Crl.O.P.No.19269 of 2023

¶23

him from disclosing facts to the Court, had been imposed.

¶24

3.Complaining that the 2^nd respondent had been interfering and trying to influence one witness, Poomalai, which influence would be to the disadvantage of the defacto complainant during the course of trial process, this petition has been filed seeking cancellation of bail.

¶25

4.Notice had been issued to the 2^nd respondent / accused and the learned counsel had also entered appearance.

¶26

5.I must state that good sense had prevailed and the learned counsel had advised the 2^nd respondent to file an affidavit that he would not interfere with any person or any witness. The paragraph No.6 of the affidavit is as follows:

¶27

“6. I further submit that I am not involved any kind of activities I am not threatening to anyone person or anyone witness I obediently follow the Court order and also and undertake to file this affidavit I am not threatening to any witness of above said case and I am not involved any kind of similar offence and I am not tamper of evidence with the above said this case.”

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6

¶29

3/6

¶30

Crl.O.P.No.19269 of 2023

¶31

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, pointed out the words stated therein and stated that they give an impression that the 2^nd respondent is not guilty of any of the offences alleged against him. But, let me not put the language as framed, against the 2^nd respondent, but broadly take it to be an undertaking that the 2^nd respondent would not influence or coerce or in any manner interfere with not only with the named individual Poomalai but with every other witnesses for the prosecution.

¶32

7.A copy of this affidavit may also be produced and filed before

¶33

the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Salem and also be kept in the records in Crime No.218 of 2023.

¶34

8.Observing as above, the petition seeking cancellation of bail

¶35

stands disposed of, since directions have been given and the undertakings

recorded.

14.12.2023

smv

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/6

¶40

4/6

¶41

Crl.O.P.No.19269 of 2023

¶42

¶43

1.The learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Salem.

¶44

2.The Inspector of Police, Kannankurichi Police Station, Salem.

¶45

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/6

¶47

Crl.O.P.No.19269 of 2023

¶48

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

¶49

smv

¶50

Crl.O.P.No.19269 of 2023

¶51

14.12.2023

¶52

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

K.Rajendran v. State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Rajendran v. State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S. Ananda Raj Vs the State, Rep by the Inspector of Police

P. Subramani Vs State Represented by

K.R.Natesh Krishna Vs State Rep.by

E.Karthick Vs State Rep by

Sivalingaswami Vs Inspector of Police

Rajesh Vs Inspector of Police