Allowed

Vignesh Kumar v. the State Rep.by

Madras HC20 Aug 2024CRL OP/20109/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two petitioners in judicial custody for an alleged group attack on a defacto complainant's house sought bail. Considering the offence's nature, their period of incarceration and that they had been bailed out in all three previous cases, the court granted conditional regular bail with bond, sureties, daily reporting and non-tampering conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on Rs.10,000 bond each with two sureties, subject to reporting, conduct and evidence-preservation conditions

Vignesh Kumar Vs the State Rep.by — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.20109 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 20.08.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.20109 of 2024

1.Vigneshkumar

2.Prasad

... Petitioners

Vs.

The State represented by, The Inspector of Police Manimangalam Police Station, Kancheepuram District. Crime No.216 of 2024).

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.216 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police.

¶14

For Petitioners : Mr.D.Magesh For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinothkumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial

¶17

custody on 24.06.2024, for the alleged offence punishable under Sections

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/6

¶19

Crl.O.P.No.20109 of 2024

¶20

147, 148, 294(b), 506(ii), 307 of IPC r/w Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, in Crime No.216 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.

¶21

The case of the prosecution is that there was a previous enmity between the petitioners and the defacto complainant regarding taking a person on bail. On 23.06.2024, when the defacto complainant was inside his house with his children, the petitioner along with 15 other persons with deadly weapons came to his house, abused him with filthy language, threatened him with dire consequences and also damaged the defacto complainant's two wheeler and a Maruthi car. Hence, the complaint.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and due to previous enmity between the petitioners and the defacto complainant, they have been falsely implicated in this case. They have not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. He would further submit that the petitioners were arrested and they are in judicial custody for more than 50 days and are ready to abide by any

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6

¶24

Crl.O.P.No.20109 of 2024

¶25

conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed bail for the petitioners.

¶26

Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police would contend that due to previous enmity between the petitioners and the defacto complainant on the date of incident, the petitioners along with 15 other persons trespassed into the defacto complainant's house, abused him in filthy language, threatened him with dire consequences and also damaged the two-wheeler and a car belonging to the defacto complainant worth about Rs.15 lakhs. He further submitted that the petitioners are having three previous cases, pending against them. However, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioners.

¶27

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record including the First Information Report.

¶28

Considering the submissions of the learned counsel on either

¶29

side, considering the nature of offence, and considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioners, and considering that the

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6

¶31

Crl.O.P.No.20109 of 2024

¶32

petitioners are having 3 previous cases, in all of the cases, they have been released on bail and also considering all other factors, I am inclined to grant

¶33

bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions.

¶34

Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each, with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the

¶35

Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur, and on further conditions that:-

¶36

[a] the petitioners shall report before the Vellore Police Station, everyday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.

¶37

[b] the petitioners shall not commit any offences of similar nature.

¶38

[c] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or

¶39

trial.

¶40

[d] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

¶41

[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/6

¶43

Crl.O.P.No.20109 of 2024

¶44

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].

¶45