Allowed

S Praveen v. State by

Madras HC3 Sept 2024CRL OP/21340/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners charged with theft under Sections 379 and 418 IPC. Bail was conditioned on daily police reporting, execution of bond with sureties, prohibition on inducing witnesses, and obtaining court permission before leaving India.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail upon execution of bond with two sureties for Rs. 10,000 each, conditioned to appear before Judicial Magistrate Sriperumbudur within 15 days and abide by specified reporting

S Praveen Vs State by — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.21340 of 2024

¶2

Crl.O.P.No.21340 of 2024

¶3

P.DHANABAL, J.

¶4

The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offences under Section 379, 418 of the IPC, 1860 in Crime No.1132 of 2023, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

¶5

The case of the prosecution is that one Maniyan is worked as an advisor in See Hydro System India Private Limited. Due to Maniyan bad activity, the company terminated him. Because of the enmity, Maniyan started his own company in the name of Power Arm Engineering Private Limited and he tried to make bad impression about See Hydro System India Private Limited and offered very low price for some customers in his company. The erstwhile workers of See Hydro System India Private Limited namely Chandru and Paniyan join their hands with Maniyan and tried to steal some templates from See Hydro System India Private Limited. So they contacted the current workers one Praveen/Petitioner and Suresh of See Hydro System India Private Limited to take some templates. On 08.09.2023, Praveen/Petitioner and Suresh

¶6

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

¶7

1/5

¶8

Crl.O.P.No.21340 of 2024

¶9

stolen the Tie Rod it was a spare parts and handed over the stolen spare parts to that Pandiyan. Hence, the complaint.

¶10

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. However, on instructions, the learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶11

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that petitioner and his friend stolen the tie Rod it was spare parts and handed over the stolen spare parts to Pandiyan and there is no previous case as against the petitioner and further, considering the gravity of offence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶12

Considering the representations made by both sides and

¶13

considering the nature of offences charged against the petitioner and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/5

¶14

Crl.O.P.No.21340 of 2024

¶15

considering the fact that the co-accused was released on bail and that no previous case is pending against the petitioner and considering that property also recovered from first accused, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶16

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his/her appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only), with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

¶17

[a] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily for 30 days.

¶18

[b] 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 of the Court or to any police officer.

¶19

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

¶20

3/5

¶21

Crl.O.P.No.21340 of 2024

¶22

[c] the petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶23

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

¶24

[e] the petitioner shall make himself/herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶25

[f] 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 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].

¶26

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

¶27

03.09.2024

¶28

nsl

¶29

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

¶30

4/5

¶31

Crl.O.P.No.21340 of 2024

¶32

P.DHANABAL, J.

¶33

nsl

¶34

Crl.O.P.No.21340 of 2024

¶35

03.09.2024

¶36

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

¶37

5/5

S Praveen v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S Praveen v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balaji Vs State Rep by

Narasimman Vs the State Represented by

Surya Vs the State Rep by

The State Rep. by Vs Tr.S.Ravi Rathinam

Gowtham Vs State Rep by

M.Veeralakshmi Vs State Rep by