Allowed

Neelakandan v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC19 Oct 2024CRL OP/25700/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner charged with offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita regarding unparliamentary words used in a money dispute. Bail is subject to conditions including reporting to police, executing a bond, and maintaining availability for investigation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on condition of executing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, reporting to police every Saturday, and abiding by other standard bail conditions.

Neelakandan Vs the Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.25700 of 2024

¶2

Crl.O.P.No.25700 of 2024

¶3

P.DHANABAL, J.

¶4

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Section 296, 318(2), 318(4), 351(2) of BNS Act in Crime No.242 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

¶5

The case of the prosecution is that due to some dispute in

¶6

respect of settlement of amount, the petitioner used unparliamentary words against the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint.

¶7

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.

¶8

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing

¶9

for the respondent police submitted that due to some money, the petitioner

¶10

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

¶11

1/5

¶12

Crl.O.P.No.25700 of 2024

¶13

used unparliamentary words against the defacto complainant and he further submitted that there is no previous case pending against the petitioner. However, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶14

Considering the representations made by both sides and considering the nature of offences charged against the petitioner and there is a money dispute pending between the parties and no previous case is pending against the petitioner and also considering that there is a case in counter, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶15

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

¶16

(15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the Judicial Magistrate, Veppanthattai, Perambalur 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

2/5

¶18

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

¶19

Crl.O.P.No.25700 of 2024

¶20

[a] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police on every Saturday at 10.30 A.M. for a period of four weeks;

¶21

[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.

¶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

¶26

[(2005)AIR SCW 5560].

¶27

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

¶28

3/5

¶29

Crl.O.P.No.25700 of 2024

¶30

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

¶31

19.10.2024

¶32

nsl

¶33

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

¶34

4/5

¶35

Crl.O.P.No.25700 of 2024

¶36

P.DHANABAL, J.

¶37

nsl

¶38

Crl.O.P.No.25700 of 2024

¶39

19.10.2024

¶40

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

¶41

5/5

Neelakandan v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neelakandan v. the Inspector of Police

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

S.Mangalraj Vs State through

Jayashree Hari, F/48 Yrs, Vs State Represented by Its

Ajay (A-4) Vs State Represented by

Raja Vs State Rep by

A.Anandhan Vs the State Rep.by

Ellappan Vs State rep by