Suresh v. The State Rep.By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated :23.08.2024

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL CRL OP.No.20588 of 2024 Suresh ... Petitioner / Accused Vs State rep. by:- The Inspector of Police, Semmancherry Police Station, Chennai District.

... Respondent [Cr. No.209 of 2024] For Petitioner : Mr.K.Vignesh For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate [Criminal side] PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of B.N.S.S.

PRAYER: - The Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 483 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in Crime No. 209 of 2024 on the respondent police. 1/6

ORDER

The Petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 20.07.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 115, 125, 126, 296(b), 309, 311, 324, 351(2) of BNSS, in Crime No.209 of 2024, on the file of the respondent, seeks bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 20.07.2024 at about 8.00 a.m., the petitioner along with the other accused went to the defacto complainant's hotel and after having food, they refused to pay money, when the defacto complainant asked money, the accused threatened him with deadly weapons and robbed Rs.300 from the defacto complainant. Hence, the case.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the amount was also recovered. He would further submit that the petitioner is ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

2/6

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent would submit that the petitioner, along with the other accused, snatched Rs.300/- from the defacto complainant in his hotel. He would further submit that there are fifteen previous cases against the petitioner and the amount was recovered. However, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard both side learned counsel and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the nature of offence and that the amount was recovered and taking into consideration the number of days of incarceration undergone by the petitioner and that though the petitioner is having some previous cases, in all the cases, he was granted bail, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

[a] Accordingly, the Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction 3/6

of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sholinganallur, and on further conditions that:

[b] the Petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders. [c] the Petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature. [d] the Petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

[e] the Petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

[f] 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]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

23.08.2024 ata 4/6

To 1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sholinganallur. 2.The Inspector of Police, Semmancherry Police Station, Chennai District.

3.Central Prison, Puzhal.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

5/6

P.DHANABAL ,J ata CRL.OP.No.20588 of 2024 23.08.2024 6/6