Allowed

Sakthivel v. State Represented by Its

Madras HC12 Mar 2024CRL OP/3309/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case involving kidnapping for ransom. The Court granted anticipatory bail subject to strict conditions, including daily police reporting, execution of a bond with sureties, and non-interference with evidence, citing P.K. Shaji v. State of Kerala regarding consequences of breach.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted with conditions: bond with two sureties, daily reporting to police at 10.30 a.m., no tampering with evidence/witnesses, no absconding.

Sakthivel Vs State Represented by Its — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.3309 of 2024

¶2

Crl.O.P.No.3309 of 2024

¶3

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN , J.

¶4

The petitioner/A1 seeks anticipatory bail in Crime No.467 of 2023

¶5

registered by the respondent Police for the offences punishable under Sections 364(A), 147, 148, 323 & 324 of IPC.

¶6

It is stated that the petitioner along with the other accused had abducted the defacto complainant's husband and demanded a ransom of Rs.20,00,000/- from her. The other accused had been arrested and had been granted bail.

¶7

3.However, taking all the other factors into consideration this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sankari, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties 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, failing

¶8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/4

¶9

Crl.O.P.No.3309 of 2024

¶10

which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further

¶11

condition that:

¶12

[a] the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/4

¶18

2/4

¶19

Crl.O.P.No.3309 of 2024

¶20

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

¶21

12.03.2024

¶22

mtl

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/4

¶24

Crl.O.P.No.3309 of 2024

¶25

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

¶26

mtl

¶27

Crl.O.P.No.3309 of 2024

¶28

12.03.2024

¶29

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

Sakthivel v. State Represented by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sakthivel v. State Represented 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

Murali Vs State Rep By Inspector Of Police

Murugan Vs the State Rep.by

Nagarajan Vs the State

Manickam Vs The Inspector of Police

P Sengodan Vs The Inspector Of Police

M.P.Suresh Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police