Allowed

Ezhilarasan, M/a 23 Years, v. State, Rep. by

Madras HC1 Oct 2024CRL OP/9083/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim bail in a criminal case was made absolute after completion of investigation and non-appearance of the victim at mediation. Bail conditions included appearance for interrogation, no inducement to witnesses, and a warning of fresh FIR under Section 269 BNS if the accused absconds.

What did the court decide?

Interim bail granted on 15.04.2024 was made absolute subject to conditions.

Ezhilarasan, M/a 23 Years, Vs State, Rep. by — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.9083 of 2024

¶2

Crl.O.P.No.9083 of 2024

¶3

P.DHANABAL,J.

¶4

Today, the matter was listed under the caption for ''Reporting compliance''.

¶5

When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner was already granted interim bail by this Court by order dated 15.04.2024, on condition that both the the petitioner and the victim girl along with their family members should appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Thiruvarur on 22.04.2024. As per the directions of this Court, the petitioner was appeared before the Mediation Centre and the victim girl has not appeared. Thereafter, this Court by an order dated 31.07.2024, again directed the victim girl to appear before the Mediation Centre without fail. But the victim girl did not appear before the Mediation Centre.

¶6

The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) submitted that the victim girl delivered a child and she is unable to appear before the Mediation Centre. He also submitted that the investigation has been completed.

¶7

1/4

¶8

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

¶9

Crl.O.P.No.9083 of 2024

¶10

Considering the above submissions made by the learned counsel on

¶11

either side and that investigation was completed, the interim bail granted to the

¶12

petitioner dated 15.04.2024 is made absolute on the following conditions:

¶13

[a] the Petitioner shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation.

¶14

[b] the Petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which he is suspected;

¶15

[c] 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 to the Court or to any police officer;

¶16

[d] the Petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or

¶17

trial;

¶18

[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial 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

¶19

2/4

¶20

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

¶21

Crl.O.P.No.9083 of 2024

¶22

[(2005)AIR SCW 5560]; and

¶23

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

¶24

under Section 269 B.N.S.

¶25

01.10.2024

¶26

vkr

¶27

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

¶28

Crl.O.P.No.9083 of 2024

¶29

P.DHANABAL,J.

¶30

vkr

¶31

Crl.O.P.No.9083 of 2024

¶32

01.10.2024

¶33

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

Ezhilarasan, M/a 23 Years, v. State, Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ezhilarasan, M/a 23 Years, v. State, Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muthu Williams Vs Mr.Sanddep Rai Rathore and 3 others

Marie Claude Vs the State Rep. by

The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by Vs Arjunraj

Sp.Bharathee Vs S.Pachiyappan

Anver Sathath Vs the State Rep. by

Sathish @ Sanjana Vs State Rep.by