Ranjith v. State Rep. By Its

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 18.04.2023

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Ranjith ... Petitioner Vs.

The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Manalmedu Police Station, Mayiladuthurai District.

(Crime No.378 of 2018).

... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., pleased to enlarge the petitioner/accused on bail in S.C.No.60 of 2019, pending on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.P.Harikrishnan For Respondent : Mr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 1/7

O R D E R

The petitioner, who was remanded to judicial custody under PT warrant on 23.03.2023, pursuant to the non-bailable warrant of arrest issued against him on 27.02.2023, in S.C.No.60 of 2019, pending on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai, seeks bail.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an accused (A3) facing trial in S.C.No.60 of 2019, for the alleged offence under Sections 341, 506(ii) & 302 of IPC, pending on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai. He further submitted that the petitioner has all along been regularly appearing before the Court on all hearing dates, while so, since the petitioner was arrested in an another case registered by the same respondent in Crime No.60 of 2023 on 16.02.2023, he was unable to appear before the trial Court on 27.02.2023 and also, he was unable to instruct his counsel to file the petition under Section 317 Cr.P.C., thereby, the trial Court has issued a Non Bailable Warrant of arrest against him on 27.02.2023 and pursuant to which, the petitioner was remanded through PT warrant on 23.03.2023.

2/7

3. He further submitted that the petitioner is prepared to furnish sufficient sureties and ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court and he is also ready to file an Affidavit of Undertaking stating that he will co-operate for speedy disposal of the trial and also submitted that the petitioner would ensure that he will appear before the trial Court on all hearing dates without fail. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that since the petitioner, who is an accused (A3) facing trial in S.C.No.60 of 2019, pending on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai, has failed to appear before the trial Court on 27.02.2023, a Non-Bailable Warrant of arrest was issued against him and pursuant to the same, he was remanded through PT warrant on 23.03.2023. Hence, he opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent and perused the entire materials available on record.

3/7

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, taking note of the undertaking given by the petitioner and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a 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 learned District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai, and on further conditions that:

[a] 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;

[b] the petitioner shall report before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai, on all working days at 10.30 a.m., for a period of one week and thereafter, on the dates fixed by the learned trial Judge;

4/7

[c] the petitioner, after coming out on bail, shall file an Affidavit of Undertaking to the effect that he will co-operate for speedy disposal of the trial; [d] the petitioner shall not abscond during trial; [e] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness during trial;

[f] 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]; [g] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC. 18.04.2023 ham 5/7

To

1. The District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai.

2. The Inspector of Police, Manalmedu Police Station, Mayiladuthurai.

3. The Nagapattinam Prison.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

6/7

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA.,J.

ham 18.04.2023 7/7