Anass @ Saboortheen v. State Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.09.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.OP.No.21803 of 2022 Anass @ Saboortheen ... Petitioner Vs.
The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Mettupalayam Police Station, Mettupalayam, Coimbatore District.
(Crime No.639 of 2022) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail pending investigation in connection with the Crime No.639 of 2022 on the file of the respondent Police. For Petitioner :
Mr.Pa.Saigovindaraja For Respondent :
Mr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 1/6
O R D E R
The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 02.08.2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 394 & 397 of IPC, in Crime No.639 of 2022 on the file of the respondent Police, seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 30.07.2022, the petitioner along with the other accused waylaid the de-facto complainant and intimidating him at knife point robbed a sum of Rs.2,500/- cash and Vivo mobile from him and inflicted injuries on him. Hence the complaint.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has two previous cases, out of which, one is under Section 294 (b) IPC and another one is under NDPS Act. He would further submit that only since the petitioner did not appear before the respondent Police for executing a bond, a false case has been foisted as against him. He would also submit that the petitioner is prepared to comply with any stringent condition imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.
2/6
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner along with the other accused waylaid the de-facto complainant and robbed a sum of Rs.2,500/- cash and Vivo mobile from him at a knife point and caused injuries. He would also submit that there are two previous cases as against the petitioner. However, he opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also taking note of the nature of previous cases, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five 3/6
thousand only) with two sureties, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam, and on further conditions that:
[a] 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 petitioner shall report before the respondent Police, everyday at 10.30 a.m. and 5.30p.m., until further orders;
[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 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];
4/6
[f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.
14.09.2022 ham To
1. The Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam.
2. The Inspector of Police, Mettupalayam Police Station, Coimbatore District.
3. The Central Jail, Coimbatore.
4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
5/6
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA.,J.
ham 14.09.2022 6/6