The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, accused of offences including voluntary assembly and criminal intimidation, directed to execute a personal bond and abide by specified conditions.
Petitioner granted anticipatory bail on personal bond of Rs. 10,000 to appear on summons before Magistrate.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRL OP(MD)No.18889 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
( Criminal Jurisdiction )
Date : 15.12.2023
PRESENT
The Hon`ble MR JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
CRL OP(MD)No.18889 of 2023
Manikanda Prabhu ... Petitioner/Accused No.3
Vs
The Sub Inspector of Police, Thiruthangal Police Station, Virudhunagar District. In Crime No.252 of 2023 ... Respondent/Complainant
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jothi Basu, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, Government Advocate(Crl.side)
PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C
PRAYER :-
For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.252 of 2023 on the file of the Respondent Police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :-
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the
offences punishable under Sections 147, 341, 294(b), 195(A), 506(ii) IPC in Crime https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/5
CRL OP(MD)No.18889 of 2023
No.252 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that Ganeshan @ Potta Kurangu is an accused in the murder case and the accused persons in this case are friends to the said Ganesh @ Potta Kurangu. They threatened the defacto complainant, who is the evidence to the above said murder case. Hence, the case.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail.
4.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that the investigation is pending.
5.Considering the nature of allegations levelled as against the petitioner and taking into consideration the principles stated by the Honourable Supreme Court in Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia Etc., vs. State of Punjab reported in 1980 AIR 1632 and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2009)4
SCC 437 and Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (1994)4 SCC https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/5
CRL OP(MD)No.18889 of 2023
260 and taking into consideration the origin of crime, it is seen that the offence alleged as against the petitioner is not a case of heinous crime. Further the petitioner is having permanent residence at Virudhunagar District. Hence the principles stated in Hussainara Khatoon & Ors vs. Home Secretary, State Of Bihar reported in AIR 1979 SC 1360 is taken into consideration. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has cautioned that pre-trial detention is not be encouraged nor is to be encourageable pretrial release on sureties; that if the Court is satisfied after taking into consideration that the accused has his roots in the community and is not likely to abscond, he can safely be released on his personal bond.
6.In view of the above, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 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 Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District on condition that the petitioner shall execute a own bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that :
3/5
CRL OP(MD)No.18889 of 2023
[a] the petitioner shall affix his photograph 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 his identity.
[b] the petitioner shall report before the trial Court on summons.
[c] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.
[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
[e] 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].
[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.
sd/15/12/2023
/ TRUE COPY /
/01/2024
Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S. -I, II, III, IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
gns
4/5
CRL OP(MD)No.18889 of 2023
TO
ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.18889 of 2023 Date :15/12/2023
RK/VR(02/01/2024) 5P / 6C
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023
5/5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C in an offence punishable under Sections 147, 341, 294(b), 195(A), 506(ii) IPC.
Whether the petitioner, being an innocent and residing permanently in the district, is likely to abscond.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia Etc. vs. State of PunjabRelied on¶24
Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia Etc., vs. State of Punjab reported in 1980 AIR 1632 · Who else cites this
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh vs. State of Uttar PradeshRelied on¶24
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2009)4 SCC 437 · Who else cites this
Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P.Relied on¶24
Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (1994)4 SCC 260 · Who else cites this
Hussainara Khatoon & Ors vs. Home Secretary, State Of BiharRelied on¶28
Hussainara Khatoon & Ors vs. Home Secretary, State Of Bihar reported in AIR 1979 SC 1360 · Who else cites this
P.K.Shaji vs. State of KeralaRelied on¶38
P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560] · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Manikanda Prabhu
The Sub Inspector of Police
V. Sivagnanam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
