Ibrahim v. State Rep By Its

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 19.05.2021 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM CRL.O.P.No. 9277 of 2021 1.Ibrahim 2.Abdul Hakeem 3.Syed Ishaq ... Petitioners Vs.

State rep by its, The Inspector of Police, Elavanasur Police Station, Kallakuruchi District.

(Crime No.Not Known of 2021) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code to enlarge the petitioners on bail, in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.Not known of 2021, pending on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioners : Mr.D.Dayalan For Respondent : Mr.J.C.Durairaj Government Advocate (Crl. Side) *****

O R D E R

(The case has been heard through video conference) The petitioners, who apprehend arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(ii) of IPC, in Crime No.Not known of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that a false complaint has been given against the petitioners and they have not connected with the crime as alleged by the prosecution. 3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent state would submit that now the crime number has been assigned in this case as Crime No.129 of 2021. However, he would vehemently oppose to grant 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 material on record.

5.The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1980 SC 1632), has explained the true scope of Section 438 Cr.P.C.,. Further, the Supreme Court has laid down the law regarding arrest of accused for the offences punishable below 7 years, in the case of Arnesh kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014 8 SCC 273) 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 are granted anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest or on their appearance, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ulundurpet, 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.

[e] the petitioners shall affix his 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. [f] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

[g] 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].

[h] If the accused thereafter abscond, 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, ULUNDURPET.

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

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ELAVANASUR POLICE STATION, KALLAKURUCHI DISTRICT.

+1 CC to M/S.D.DAYALAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.No.6261 CRL OP.9277/2021 Date :19/05/2021 cs 22/06/2021