Disposed

Aravindasamy v. State Rep.by

Madras HC2 Apr 2024CRL OP/3504/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case arising from a dispute over vacating premises, involving allegations of attack and abuse. The court granted anticipatory bail, noting the petitioner had vacated the premises and the victim was discharged from hospital.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and conditions including reporting to respondent police every Saturday for two months.

Aravindasamy Vs State Rep.by — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.3504 of 2024

¶2

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶3

The petitioner who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 294 b, 324 and 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.87 of 2024, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶4

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused persons attacked and abused the victim with filthy language. Hence, the case.

¶5

Heard both sides.

¶6

Considering the above fact and circumstances of the case, there

¶7

was a dispute with regard to vacating the premises. Now, the petitioner vacated the premises and also the victim discharged from the hospital. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶8

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

¶9

the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned X

¶10

Page 1 of 4

¶11

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

¶12

Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a separate 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, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

¶13

[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.

¶14

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of two months and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the

¶18

Page 2 of 4

¶19

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

¶20

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].

¶21

[f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be

¶22

registered under Section 229A IPC.

¶23

02.04.2024

¶24

pbl

¶25

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶26

Page 3 of 4

¶27

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

¶28

pbl

¶29

Crl.O.P.No.3504 of 2024

¶30

02.04.2024

¶31

Page 4 of 4

¶32

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

Aravindasamy v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aravindasamy 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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vithayasegar Vs Inspector of Police

Bharath Vs State Rep.by

S.Jaishankar Vs State Represented by

Kuberan @ Gubendhiran Vs State Rep by

Mohan @ Mohanadass Vs State Rep. by

Nivetan @ Gnanaprakasam Ravi Nivetan Vs Inspector Of Police