C.M.Vigneshwaran v. State Rep By,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 28.10.2020 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA CRL.O.P.No.16614 of 2020 C.M.Vigneshwaran ... Petitioner Vs.
State by:
Inspector of Police, T-9, Pattabiram Police Station, Tiruvallur District.
(Crime.No.654/2020) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.654 of 2020 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, T-9 Pattabiram Police Station, Tiruvallur District. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mathanraj For Respondent : Mr.T.Shunmugarajeswaran Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
O R D E R
(The case has been heard through video conference) The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 23.09.2020 for the offences punishable under Section 392 of IPC later altered to Section 395 of IPC, in Crime No.654 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. 2.The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant Nomonkhan is that he along with his friends is engaged in the business of selling T.V., Cooker and Gas Stove. While so, on 22.09.2020, when they were returning after selling electronic items in Pattabiram, three persons who came in a two wheeler, waylaid them and by threatening them with knife, robbed Rs.35,000/- from them. Based on the complaint the case was registered.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Infact the defacto complainant is a person from Uttar Pradesh and he had sold duplicate electronic items and cheated the public in the petitioner's locality. Since,
it was questioned by the people in the petitioner's locality, a false complaint has been given against the accused persons as if, they robbed Rs.35,000/- from him. He would submit that in fact the said amount of Rs.35,000/- is the refund, given by the defacto complainant in respect of the duplicate electronic items sold by him. He would submit that the petitioner is arrayed as third accused in this case and that the co-accused in this case have been granted bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.15916 of 2020, dated 13.10.2020 and Crl.O.P.No.16105 of 2020, dated 12.10.2020. He would further submit that there is no previous case against the petitioner and he has been suffering incarceration from 23.09.2020. Hence, he prays for grant of bail. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.
Side) appearing for the respondent would vehemently oppose stating that the petitioner along with two other accused waylaid the defacto complainant who is an electronic items seller and robbed Rs.35,000/- from him. He would further submit that there is no previous case against the petitioner. However, the enquiry reveals that the defacto complainant has sold duplicate electronic items.
5.Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsels and also taking into consideration the period of incarceration suffered by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:
(a) Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to 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 learend Judicial Magistrate-II, Tiruvallur, and on further conditions that:
(b) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar Card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity;
(c) the petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. (d) the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature;
(e) the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;
(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 Judicial 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.
6.With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is ordered.
-sd/- 28/10/2020 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.II, TIRUVALLUR.
2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TIRUVALLUR [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, PUZHAL, CHENNAI-600 066.
4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
5 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, T-9,PATTABIRAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT.
CC to M/S.M.MATHANRAJ Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.16614/2020 Date :28/10/2020 MK:29/10/2020