Disposed

Manikandan v. The State Rep by

Madras HC1 Oct 2024CRL OP/12460/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought anticipatory bail after mediation between the parties failed; investigation was complete. The court made the earlier interim anticipatory bail absolute subject to standard conditions, including appearance as required and consequences under P.K.Shaji on breach or absconding.

What did the court decide?

Interim anticipatory bail dated 06.06.2024 made absolute on enumerated conditions.

Manikandan Vs The State Rep by — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.12460 of 2024

¶2

P.DHANABAL,J.

¶3

Crl.O.P.No.12460 of 2024

¶4

Today, the matter was listed under the caption for ''Reporting compliance''.

¶5

When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel

¶6

for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner was already granted interim anticipatory bail by this Court by order dated 06.06.2024, on condition that

¶7

both the parties should appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Kallakurichi on 27.06.2024. However, the mediation process was not settled

¶8

between the parties and he seeks for anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶9

The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) submitted that the respondent also concedes the said submission of the learned counsel for the

¶10

petitioner and he also submitted that investigation has been completed.

¶11

Considering the above submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and that investigation was completed, the interim bail granted to the petitioner dated 06.06.2024 is made absolute on the following conditions:

¶12

1/3

¶13

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

¶14

Crl.O.P.No.12460 of 2024

¶15

[a] the Petitioner shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation.

¶16

[b] the Petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which he is suspected;

¶17

[c] the Petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶18

[d] the Petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or

¶19

trial;

¶20

[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial 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]; and

¶21

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

01.10.2024

vkr

2/3

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

¶26

Crl.O.P.No.12460 of 2024

¶27

P.DHANABAL,J.

¶28

Vkr

¶29

Crl.O.P.No.12460 of 2024

¶30

01.10.2024

¶31

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

Manikandan v. The State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manikandan v. The State Rep by

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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muthu Williams Vs Mr.Sanddep Rai Rathore and 3 others

Marie Claude Vs the State Rep. by

The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by Vs Arjunraj

Sp.Bharathee Vs S.Pachiyappan

Anver Sathath Vs the State Rep. by

Sathish @ Sanjana Vs State Rep.by