Ajith@Mahendrakumar v. State Rep.By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 19.05.2021 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM CRL.O.P.No. 9096 of 2021 Ajith @ Mahendrakumar ... Petitioner Vs.

State rep by, Inspector of Police, Mayiladuthurai Police Station, Mayiladuthurai, Nagapattinam District.

(Crime No.406 of 2021) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code to enlarge the petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest in Crime No.406 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.T.Saravanan For Respondent : Mr.J.C.Durairaj Government Advocate (Crl. Side) *****

ORDER

(The case has been heard through video conference) The petitioners, who apprehend arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 324 & 307 IPC in Crime No.406 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a false complaint has been given against the petitioners and they have not connected with the crime as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he would pray to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent state would submit that there was wordy quarrel between the petitioner and the defacto complainant due to which, the petitioner assaulted the defacto complainant with hands and knife due to which the defacto complainant sustained injuries and would submit that the injured has been discharged from the hospital. Hence, he would vehemently oppose for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4.This Court considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for all the parties concerned and also perused the FIR. 5.The Supreme Court has laid down the law regarding grant of anticipatory bail in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Vs. State (AIR 1980 SC 1632) and considering the fact that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary and the fact that there is no apprehension that the petitioners may abscond, the petitioners were granted anticipatory bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mayiladuthurai, on condition that the petitioners shall execute their own bond for a sum of Rs.

[c] the petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;

[d] the petitioners shall appear before the Court below, whenever required.

[d] the petitioners shall affix their photograph and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of his Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure his/her identity. [e] the petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the 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]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

-sd/- 19/05/2021 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, NO.I, MAYILADUTHURAI.

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NAGAPATTINAM [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MAYILADUTHURAI POLICE STATION, MAYILADUTHURAI, NAGAPATTINAM DISTRICT.

+1 CC to M/S.C.T.SARAVANAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.No.6244 CRL OP.9096/2021 Date :19/05/2021 cs 16/06/2021