Allowed

T Sivakumar v. the State Rep. by Its

Madras HC16 Aug 2024CRL OP/16011/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who alleged false implication in a private dispute settled via mediation. The grant was subject to reporting monthly, not tampering with evidence/witnesses, and not absconding, with powers to act on breach.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner upon execution of a bond for Rs.10,000 with two sureties and compliance with reporting and conduct conditions.

T Sivakumar Vs the State Rep. by Its — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

Crl.O.P.No.16011 of 2024

¶3

P.DHANABAL, J.

¶4

The petitioner apprehend arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC in Crime No.366 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.

¶5

The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant has been introduced to the petitioner by one Sadhik and the petitioner was running an construction company. The defacto complainant was engaged as a sub contractor for installation of petrol bunks and both entered into an agreement. While so, all the works at the sites were completed and the payment for the work order was released. But the deposit amount was not being paid as the petitioner's father was not available. Eventually, the petitioner shouted at the defacto complainant and hence, the defacto complainant has lodged a case at D-1 Fairland Police Station.

¶6

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner had not committed any offence as alleged and the petitioner had

¶7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis been falsely implicated in this case and further stated that the matter has

¶8

¶9

already been settled before the mediation and he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶10

When this matter was taken up for hearing, it is stated that the matter was settled between the parties through mediations.

¶11

The learned counsel for the defacto complainant along with the petitioner have jointly represented that this matter has been amicably settled between the parties and the defacto complainant has no objection to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner and produced the copies of the settlement arrived at between them. Recording the same and considering that the matter has been compromised and considering the nature of offences involved in this case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶12

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail

¶13

in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the learned District Munsiff cum Judicial Magistrate, Madhavaram on condition that

¶14

the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

Thousand Only), with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction

¶18

of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the

¶19

satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

¶20

[a] the petitioner shall report before the respondent

¶21

police at the first day of every english calendar month at

¶22

10.30 a.m for three months.

¶23

[b] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness

¶24

either during investigation or trial.

¶25

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during

¶26

investigation or trial.

¶27

[d] 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

¶28

by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the

¶29

Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala

¶30

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

¶31

¶32

[(2005)AIR SCW 5560].

¶33

[e] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be

¶34

registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

16.08.2024

vca

P.DHANABAL, J.

vca

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

¶40

¶41

Crl.O.P.No.16011 of 2024

¶42

16.08.2024

¶43

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

T Sivakumar v. the State Rep. by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T Sivakumar v. the State Rep. by Its

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

Kaliyagurumoorthi Vs B.Thenmozhi

Vinoth Ravichandran Vs the State Rep.by

Sideeshvaran Vs state rep by

V.Kamala Vs The Inspector of Police

M/S.Psg Hospitals Owned by P.S.Govindaswamy Naidu and Sons Charities Vs the Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board

J.Edwin Yesupatham Vs the State Rep by Its