Jaisanjai@Sanjai v. The State Rep.By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Thirtieth day of April Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.8323 of 2021 JAISANJAI @ SANJAI [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs THE STATE REP.BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PULIAMPATTI POLICE STATION, ERODE DISTRICT.
CR.NO.144 OF 2021.
For Petitioner : M/S.C.RAMKUMAR Advocate For Respondent : M/S.T.SHUNMUGARAJESWARAN, Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 324 @ 324, 427 and 506(ii) of IPC, in Crime No.144 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that there was a previous enmity between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, as a result of which, there was a wordy quarrel, the petitioner along with other accused persons had attacked the defacto complainant with iron pipe and caused injuries. Hence, the complaint was registered. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that there was a previous enmity between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, as a result of which, there was a wordy quarrel, the petitioner along with other accused persons had attacked the defacto complainant with iron pipe and caused injuries. He would further submit that the injured person has been discharged from the hospital. However, he vehemently opposed grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5.Considering the fact that the injured person has been discharged from the hospital and there is no previous case pending against the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy was made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Sathyamangalam, Erode, on condition that the petitioner shall execute 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that: (a) the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Court concerned may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity; (b) the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m.
(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]; and;
(f) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.
-sd/- 30/04/2021 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SATHIYAMANGALAM, ERODE DISTRICT.
2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ERODE. [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PULIAMPATTI POLICE STATION, ERODE DISTRICT.
+1 CC to M/S.C.RAMKUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.5749 CRL OP.8323/2021 Date :30/04/2021 TA-17/05/2021