M.Mahendran v. The State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 21.09.2022

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA M.Mahendran ... Petitioner Vs.

The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Andhiyur Police Station, Erode District.

Crime No.278 of 2022 ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.278 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Logendiran 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 20.08.2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 394 and 397 of I.P.C., in Crime No.278 of 2022, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 20.08.2022, while the defacto complainant was sleeping in his farm, one Ramesh of Pudhukottai along with the other accused had come to his farm and tied him and taken him near the crematorium and thereafter, had taken 4 cows from his farm in a van bearing Registration No.TN 55 BW 7623. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the driver of the said van and the van was engaged by the other accused and believing the other accused, he had accompanied them and while he was standing on the main road, the accused had brought 4 cows and the petitioner had transported them and dropped the same in the other place. Other than that, he has no connection with the other accused. He 2/6

would also submit that there are no previous cases as against the petitioner. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner is a gang member of A1, they have gone to the farm of the defacto complainant and tied him with rope and committed theft of 4 cows from the farm. He would also submit that the investigation is pending. Therefore, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard both the learned counsel 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, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

3/6

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 Thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Bhavani, 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, daily at 10.30 a.m. and 5.30 p.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 4/6

in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];

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

21.09.2022 rgi To

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.2, Bhavani.

2. The Inspector of Police, Andhiyur Police Station, Erode District.

3. The Superintendent, Bhavani Sub Jail, Erode District.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

5/6

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA., J.

rgi 21.09.2022 6/6