Madras High CourtCRL OP/19595/2020granted

P.Rajendran v. State, Rep. By

2020-12-14Honourable Mr Justice A.D.Jagadish Chandira3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 14.12.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.O.P.No.19595 of 2020 1.P.Rajendran 2.R.Vignesh ... Petitioners Vs.

The State: Represented by, The Inspector of Police, Sulur Police Station, Coimbatore.

(Cr.No.1719 of 2020) ... Respondent Prayer:

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Connection with the Crime No.1719 of 2020 pending on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioners : Mr.D.Manoj Kumar For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

(This case has been heard through video conference) The petitioners who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 324 & 506 (ii) of IPC, in Crime No.1719 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that there was a dispute between the petitioners and the de-facto complainant. On 09.09.2020, the defacto complainant was watering his garden at that time, there was a wordy quarrel between the petitioners and defacto complainant as a result of which, the petitioners had attacked the defacto complainant with iron pipe and thereby he sustained injuries. Hence, the complaint was registered.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the petitioners and the defacto complainant are close relatives. He would further submit that the first petitioner is the paternal uncle and the second petitioner is the son of the first petitioner. He would further submit that there are no previous case pending as against the petitioners. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that that there was a dispute between the petitioners and the defacto complainant. On 09.09.2020, when the defacto complainant watering his garden at that time, there was a wordy quarrel between the petitioners and defacto complainant as a result of which, the petitioners had attacked the defacto complainant with iron pipe and he sustained injuries. He would further submit that the injured person has been discharged from the hospital. He would further submit that there are no previous cases pending as against the petitioners. However, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Taking into consideration the facts and submissions of the learned Counsel and also the fact that the injured person has been discharged from the hospital, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to the following conditions;

6. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the copy of the order is made ready, before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Sulur, Coimbatore, on condition that each of the petitioner shall execute a separate 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

[a] the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.

[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders. [c] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

[e] 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].

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

7.With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is ordered.

-sd/- 14/12/2020 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 COURT, SULUR, COIMBATORE.

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

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SULUR POLICE STATION, COIMBATORE.

+1CC to D.MANOJ KUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR NO.8188 CRL OP.19595/2020 Date :14/12/2020 MK:17/12/2020