Alwin Samubel v. State By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 08.07.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI Crl.O.P.No.11709 of 2021 Alwin Samubel ... Petitioner Vs.

State by Inspector of Police Porayar Police Station, Nagapattinam District.

(Crime No.208 of 2021) ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.208 of 2021 pending on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Zainul Abideen For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl side)

ORDER

The petitioner who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 77 of Juvenile Justice Act and 506(1) of I.P.C., in Crime No.208 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.There are totally three accused persons involved in this case. The case of the prosecution is that as per the defacto complainant, the petitioner and other accused persons have used the minor son of the defacto complainant, taken his photos of his smoking and drinking liquor in the cell phone and blackmailed him and extorted a sum of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand Only) and jewels from the minor boy. Hence, the law enforcing agency registered a case against the petitioner and other accused.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he is falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that co-accused had already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.11079 of 2021 dated 29.06.2021. Hence, the learned counsel prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submits that the petitioner and other accused persons have used the minor son of the defacto complainant, taken his photos of his smoking and drinking liquor in the cell phone and blackmailed him and extorted a sum of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand Only) and jewels from the minor boy. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the co-accused had already been granted anticipatory bail, 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 of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Tharangambadi, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.

(c) the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders.

(d) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

(e) the petitioner shall not abscond 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 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;

(g) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

-sd/- 08/07/2021 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 JUDICAL MAGISTRATE, THARANGAMBADI 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NAGAPATTINAM(FOR INFORMATION) 3 INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PORAYAR POLICE STATION, NAGAPATTINAM DISTRICT.

4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S. M.ZAINUL ABIDEEN Advocate on payment of necessary charges Sr.32412(CS) CRL OP.11709/2021 Date :08/07/2021 RVR 20/07/2021