V. Jagan v. The State Rep.By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 07.08.2024

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL V.Jagan ... Petitioner Vs.

The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Pudupettai Police Station, Cuddalore District.

(Crime No.345 of 2024).

... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail, in Crime No.345 of 2024 on the file of the respondent Police.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Chakkaravarthy For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinothkumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 1/6

O R D E R

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 12.07.2024, for the alleged offences punishable under Section 126(2), 296(b), 115(2), 324(4), 109(1), 351(3) of BNS and Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act, 1992 in Crime No.345 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, due to a drunken mood, the petitioner along with other accused persons attacked the defacto complainant and also damaged his vehicle worth about Rs.25,000/-. Hence the case.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed any offence as alleged in FIR. The alleged occurrence took place on 11.07.2024 and the petitioner was arrested on 12.07.2024. He is in judicial custody for nearly 30 days and is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed bail for the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the 2/6

respondent police would contend that the petitioner along with other accused, in a drunken mood, attacked the defacto complainant with stones and damaged his vehicle worth about Rs.25,000/- and also threatened him with dire consequences. He would further submit that the petitioner has one previous case, pending against him and thereby, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record including the First Information Report.

6. Considering the nature of offence and considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner and also considering the fact that the petitioner has one previous case and has been released on bail, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing 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 Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Panruti and on further conditions that :- 3/6

[a] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police on everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of 30 days and thereafter as and when required for interrogation.

[b] the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature. [c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

[e] 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].

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS.

07.08.2024 drl 4/6

T0 1.The Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Panruti 2.The Inspector of Police, Pudupettai Police Station, Cuddalore District.

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddalore.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

5/6

P.DHANABAL, J.

drl 07.08.2024 6/6