Manikkam v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 12.09.2022

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

1. Manikkam

2. Ponnumani

3. Murali

4. Ranjith ... Petitioners Vs.

The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Kundrathur Police Station, Kanchipuram District.

(Crime No.555/2022).

... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., pleased to enlarge the petitioners on bail pending investigation in connection with the Crime No.555 of 2022 on the file of the respondent. For Petitioners :

Mr.V.Elangovan For Respondent :

Mr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 1/6

O R D E R

The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 11.08.2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 392 & 397 of IPC, in Crime No.555 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the de-facto complainant is that he is running a petty shop and on 11.08.2022, the petitioners along with the other accused intimidated him at knife point and robbed Rs.2,300/- from him. Hence the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He would also submit that reading of the First Information Report will show that the case has been foisted only for invoking Act 14 against the accused and pursuant to the same, the coaccused one Tamilalagu/A1 has been detained under Act14. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioners.

2/6

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioners along with the other accused intimidated the de-facto complainant at knife point and robbed Rs.2,300/- from him. He would also submit that there is one previous case against the first and second petitioner and there is no previous case against the third and fourth petitioner. However, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioners.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners 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 petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.

7. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their executing a bond each 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, Sriperumbudur, 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 petitioners shall report before the respondent Police every day at 10.30 a.m. and 5.30 p.m., until further orders;

[c] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[d] the petitioners 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 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];

4/6

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

12.09.2022 ham To

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur.

2. The Inspector of Police, Kundrathur Police Station, Kanchipuram District. .

3. The Central Prison, Puzhal.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

5/6

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA.,J.

ham Crl.O.P.No.21930 of 2022 12.09.2022 6/6