The Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners facing charges of affray, obscene acts, mischief, and criminal intimidation. Releasing them on a personal bond of Rs.10,000 with standard conditions.
Petitioners released on bail via own bond of Rs.10,000 with conditions to appear in court, not abscond, and not tamper with evidence.
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.18923 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
( Criminal Jurisdiction )
Date : 06.12.2023
PRESENT
The Hon`ble MR JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
CRL OP(MD)No.18923 of 2023
1.A.Gnanaprakasam
2.Charlass 3.Saran Raj ... Petitioners/Accused Rank A3,A1 & A2
Vs
The Inspector of Police, Namunasamuthiram Police Station, Pudukottai District. (In Crime No.91 of 2023) ... Respondent/Complainant
(Accused Rank, Crime Number & Sections amended as per order of this Court dated 20.11.2023 in Crl MP(MD)No.16116 of 2023 in CRL OP(MD)No.18923 of 2023)
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Muthumalai, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr.R.Sureshkumar, Government Advocate(Crl.side)
1/6
CRL OP(MD)No.18923 of 2023
PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C
PRAYER :-
For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.91 of 2023 on the file of the Respondent Police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :-
The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 294(b), 427 and 506(ii) IPC in Crime No.91 of 2023, seek anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners abused and threatened the defacto complainant and also damaged the car of the defacto complainant. Hence the case.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that in fact, the defacto complainant and his friends attacked the petitioners and hence, the first petitioner preferred a complaint as against the defacto complainant and his friends. As a counter blast, the
present case came to be registered. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/6
CRL OP(MD)No.18923 of 2023
4.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that the investigation in this case is pending.
5.On perusal of records, it is noticed that due to quarrel between the parties, a case and a counter case came to be registered.
6.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 260 and taking into consideration the origin of crime, it is seen that the offence alleged as against the petitioners is not a case of heinous crime. Further the petitioners are having permanent residence at Pudukkottai 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 pre-trial 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. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3/6
CRL OP(MD)No.18923 of 2023
7.In view of the above, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the
petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam on condition that the petitioners 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 :
[a] the petitioners 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 their identity.
[b] the petitioners shall report before the trial Court on summons.
[c] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during
investigation or trial.
4/6
CRL OP(MD)No.18923 of 2023
[d] the petitioners 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 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].
[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.
sd/06/12/2023
/ TRUE COPY /
/12/2023
Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S. ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
gns
TO
1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUMAYAM.
5/6
CRL OP(MD)No.18923 of 2023
ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.18923 of 2023 Date :06/12/2023
RK/DD (19/12/2023) 6P / 6C
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023
6/6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC for offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 427 and 506(ii) IPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of PunjabReferred¶29
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 PradeshReferred¶29
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.Referred¶29
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 BiharReferred¶29
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 KeralaExplained¶42
P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560] · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
1.A.Gnanaprakasam
2.Charlass 3.Saran Raj
The Inspector of Police, Namunasamuthiram Police Station, Pudukottai District
V. SIVAGNANAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
