Disposed

Pradhap @ Sugesh v. Inspector of Police

Madras HC14 Feb 2024CRL OP/3428/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application by an accused in a sessions trial for offences including attempt to murder, who had been remanded after a non-bailable warrant was issued when he failed to appear. Considering the period of incarceration, bail granted on bond with two sureties and conditions including weekly reporting to the Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered released on bail on executing Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties, subject to reporting and conduct conditions.

Pradhap @ Sugesh Vs Inspector of Police — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.3428 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 14.02.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.3428 of 2024

Pradhap @ Sugesh

... Petitioner

Vs.

The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Hasthampatty Police Station, Crime No.323 of 2022 ... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., prayed to enlarge the petitioner on bail in S.C.No.140 of 2023 pending on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem.

¶12

For Petitioner : M/s.S.Sengkodi

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.L.Baskaran Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioner is an accused in S.C.No.140 of 2023 pending on the

¶16

file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem, seeks bail.

¶17

2.Originally, Crime No.323 of 2022 had been registered for the

¶18

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

¶19

Crl.O.P.No.3428 of 2024

¶20

offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) of IPC @ 294(b) and 307 of IPC.

¶21

3.It is stated that the petitioner did not appear before the Court on 19.09.2023 and Non Bailable Warrant has been issued against him and the petitioner had been remanded to custody on 25.09.2023.

¶22

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner has been arrested in another case on 05.09.2023.

¶23

5.Taking all the factors into consideration and the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

¶24

6.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/ - (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties, (the original sureties may be again produced and may execute extension of bond and provide undertaking for extension of

¶25

bond. If the same was not accepted, the petitioner shall execute fresh sureties) each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem and on further conditions that:-

¶26

[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb

¶27

2/4

¶28

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

¶29

Crl.O.P.No.3428 of 2024

¶30

Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.

¶31

[b]the petitioner shall report before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem, on every Monday at 10.30 am., for a period of four weeks including the Court hearing dates and thereafter, only during the hearing dates.

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

[e] 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].

¶35

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

¶36

14.02.2024

¶37

vkr

¶38

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

¶39

Crl.O.P.No.3428 of 2024

¶40

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.

¶41

Vkr

¶42

¶43

1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem.

¶44

2.The Inspector of Police, Hasthampatty Police Station.

¶45

3.The Central Prison, Salem.

¶46

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶47

Crl.O.P.No.3428 of 2024

¶48

14.02.2024

¶49

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

¶50

4/4

Pradhap @ Sugesh v. Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradhap @ Sugesh v. 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

Christian Vs the State Rep.by

Muniyappan Vs State by

Manivannan Vs State Represented by

K.Chandrasekar Vs Inspector of Police

Rabin Vs State Rep by

S.Rithick Vs State Rep by