Allowed

Kalaivanan v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC5 Jan 2023CRL OP/59/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who faced charges of defamation and illegal possession. The court directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.10,000, execute a bond with sureties, and report to police daily for six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail subject to deposit of Rs.10,000, bond with two sureties, daily police reporting for six weeks, and prohibition on tampering with evidence or witnesses.

Kalaivanan Vs the Inspector of Police — Caste Atrocities | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.59 of 2023

¶2

Crl.O.P.No.59 of 2023

¶3

T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.

¶4

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 342, 387, 506(ii) of IPC, in Crime No.424 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶5

The case of the prosecution as per the de-facto complainant is

¶6

that due to the existing financial dispute, the accused trespassed into the defacto complainant's office and abused him in a filthy language and by threatening him at knife point, forcibly taken away the tractor and trailer belongs to the de-facto complainant along with its RC book. Hence the case.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is

¶8

an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that when the petitioner along with his friends went to the de-facto complainant's office and demanded his money back, there arouse a wordy

¶9

Page 1 of 6

¶10

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

¶11

Crl.O.P.No.59 of 2023

¶12

quarrel between them, on taking advantage of the same, the de-facto complainant gave a false complaint against the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶13

Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that due to the money dispute, the petitioner along with the other accused, entered into the de-facto complainant's office and abused him in a filthy language and forcibly taken away the vehicles belonging to the de-facto complainant. He also stated that the vehicles were not recovered from the accused. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶14

At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on

¶15

instructions, submitted that without prejudice to the rights, the petitioner is ready to deposit the amount of Rs.10,000/- to the credit of the crime number. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶16

Page 2 of 6

¶17

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

¶18

Crl.O.P.No.59 of 2023

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent and perused the entire materials available on record.

¶20

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also taking note of the fact that the petitioner is volunteered to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the credit of the Crime No.424 of 2022, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶21

Accordingly, 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 on which the order copy made ready, before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Tharangambadi, on condition that 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the

¶22

Page 3 of 6

¶23

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

¶24

Crl.O.P.No.59 of 2023

¶25

learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stands dismissed and on further condition that:

¶26

[a] the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the credit of Crime No.424 of 2022 before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Tharangambadi, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such deposit, the defacto complainant is permitted to withdraw the same, on filing undertaking affidavit and proper identification and acknowledgment;

¶27

[b] 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 Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

¶28

[c] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of six weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;

¶29

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

¶30

[e] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

¶31

Page 4 of 6

¶32

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

¶33

Crl.O.P.No.59 of 2023

¶34

[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions,

¶35

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];

¶36

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

05.01.2023

ham

Page 5 of 6

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

¶41

Crl.O.P.No.59 of 2023

¶42

T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.

¶43

ham

¶44

Crl.O.P.No.59 of 2023

¶45

05.01.2023

¶46

Page 6 of 6

¶47

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

Kalaivanan v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalaivanan 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

Mohanraj Vs State Rep by Its

S.Kumar Vs the State Rep by Its

Arun @ Arun Kumaran Vs State Rep.by Its

Govindan Vs the State Rep by Its

Loganathan Vs the State Rep by Its

S.Chandru Vs State of Tamil Nadu