Allowed

Subramani v. State Rep by

Madras HC29 Aug 2024CRL OP/21027/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., the High Court of Judicature at Madras granted bail to the petitioner charged with damaging an ATM lock and door. Considering the nature of the offence, period of incarceration, and lack of pending cases, the court ordered release on a bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered released on bail on bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to reporting daily and not absconding or tampering with evidence.

Subramani Vs State Rep by — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.21027 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 29.08.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.21027 of 2024

¶7

Subramani ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Palladam Police Station, Tiruppur. (Crime No. 699 of 2024). ... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail, in Crime No. 699 of 2024 on the file of the respondent Police.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Kalimuthu

¶12

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

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody

¶15

on 21.07.2024, for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 331(4), 62

¶16

of BNS and 3(1) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 in

¶17

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

¶18

Crl.O.P.No.21027 of 2024

¶19

Crime No.699 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶20

The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant is that he is a manager at Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank, Palladam Branch. He receives an alarm on his mobile phone, when the bank or ATM attached to his branch is broken. On 21.07.2024, at about 1.15 a.m, the security alarm of the ATM rang on his mobile phone, for that, he went to TMB Bank, and found the main door lock broken and the ATM damaged, but no cash was stolen from the ATM. The value of the lock and door of the broken ATM is about Rs.20,000/-. Hence, the complaint.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. He would further submit that the petitioner was arrested and is in judicial custody for more than 35 days and is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed bail for the petitioner.

¶22

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the

¶23

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

¶24

Crl.O.P.No.21027 of 2024

¶25

respondent police submitted that on the date of the alleged occurrence, the petitioner allegedly broke open the ATM in order to commit theft. He damaged the lock and door of this broken ATM worth about Rs.20,000/-. He further submitted that the petitioner has no previous case pending against him. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶26

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

¶27

Considering the submissions of the learned counsel on either side, and nature of offence and considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, and also considering that the petitioner has no previous case, pending against him and also considering all others factors, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.

¶28

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on

¶29

his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only)

¶30

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

¶31

3/6

¶32

Crl.O.P.No.21027 of 2024

¶33

with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Palladam, and on further conditions that:-

¶34

[a] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

[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].

¶38

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

¶39

29.08.2024

¶40

drl

¶41

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

¶42

4/6

¶43

Crl.O.P.No.21027 of 2024

¶44

¶45

1.The Judicial Magistrate Court, Palladam.

¶46

2.The Inspector of Police, Palladam Police Station, Tiruppur.

¶47

3.The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Tiruppur.

¶48

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶49

P.DHANABAL, J .

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/6

¶51

Crl.O.P.No.21027 of 2024

¶52

drl

¶53

Crl.O.P.No.21027 of 2024

¶54

29.08.2024

¶55

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

Subramani v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subramani v. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shanmugam Vs State Rep by

Praveen Aditiya Vs State Rep by

Banumathi Vs State Rep by

C.Ravi Vs State Rep by

Aravindhan Vs the State Rep by

Arumugam Vs State Rep by