Vijayakumar @ Bigshow v. State Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 01.02.2023 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI Vijayakumar @ Bigshow, S/o.Selvam ... Petitioner Vs.
The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, E-1 Mylapore Police Station, Chennai.
(Crime No.396 of 2022) ...
Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.396 of 2022 pending on the file of respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Pandian For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side.) 1/7
O R D E R
The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 08.01.2023 for the alleged offence under Sections 294(b), 324, 307, 506(ii) of I.P.C. in Crime No.396 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The case of prosecution is that due to previous enmity, on 16.09.2022, at about 02.30 p.m. at Canal Bank Road, while the defacto complainant and his friends consuming alcohol, at that time, the petitioner along with other accused said to have came there and attacked the defacto complainant with deadly weapons on his head backside, thereby caused grievous injuries to him and escaped from the scene of occurrence by threatening them with dire consequences. Hence, the complaint was registered against the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that the entire allegation is false, vindictive, wanton and he is no way connected 2/7
with the offence. He would submit that he has not at all committed any of offence as alleged by the respondent police and he has been falsely implicated in this case and he will abide by any condition that may be imposed by this court. He would further submit that the investigation is almost completed and that the petitioner has been suffering incarceration for more than 23 days from 08.01.2023. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for respondent would submit that there are 9 previous cases pending against him. He would submit that on the date of occurrence, due to previous enmity, the petitioner along with other accused went to a tasmac shop, wherein the defacto complainant consuming liquor, they attacked him with deadly weapons, thereby he sustained grievous injuries. He would submit that that if he is released on bail, he would tamper the witnesses and hamper the investigation and the investigation is almost completed. He would submit that now the injured discharged from the hospital. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner. 3/7
5. Considering the above facts and circumstances, and also considering the fact that the investigation almost completed and the fact that the injured discharged from the hospital and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:
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 each, in which one surety must be a blood surety, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, and on further conditions that:
(a) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar Card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity;
4/7
(b) the petitioner shall stay at Tiruvannamalai and report before the Inspector of Police, Vettavalam Police Station daily at 10.30 a.m. for the period of six weeks; (c) the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature;
(d) the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;
(e) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; (f) 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 [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];
(g) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.
01.02.2023 rpp 5/7
To
1. The XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.
2. Inspector of Police, E-1 Mylapore Police Station, Chennai.
3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison-II, Puzhal.
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.
6/7
T.V. THAMILSELVI, J.
rpp Crl.O.P.No. 2116 of 2023 01.02.2023 7/7