Santhosh v. State Rep. By Its

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 20.05.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM Crl.O.P.No.9496 of 2021 Santhosh ... Petitioner Vs.

State rep. by its Inspector of Police, R.K.Pet Police Station, Thiruvallur District.

(Crime No.154 of 2020) ... Respondent PRAYER: The Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest pending investigation in Crime No.154 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police.

For petitioner : Mr.G.P.Sivakumar For Respondent : Mr.J.C.Durai Raj, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 324 & 506(ii) I.P.C., in Crime No.154 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the false complaint has been given against the petitioner and he has not connected with the crime as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays to grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the injured is still in the hospital and however, he would vehemently oppose to grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.This Court considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for all the parties concerned and perused the materials on record. Apart from the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC remaining offences are bailable.

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 petitioner is not necessary and the fact that there is no apprehension that the petitioner may abscond, the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pallipet, on condition that the petitioner shall execute his own bond for a sum of Rs.

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

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

[e] the petitioner 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 their identity. [f] the petitioner 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 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].

[h] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

-sd/- 20/05/2021 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 DISTRICT MUNSIF CUM JUDICIALMAGISTRAT, PALLIPET 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE THIRUVALLUR(FOR INFORMATION) 3 INSPECTOR OF POLICE, R.K. PET POLICE STATION, THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT.

4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S.G.P.SIVAKUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.9496/2021 Date :20/05/2021 RVR 02/07/2021