Idayadulla v. State Rep.By,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 12.10.2022

CORAM

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

1. Idayadulla

2. Balagan

3. Ravi Kumar ... Petitioners Vs.

The State rep by, Inspector of Police, K-8, Arumbakkam Police Station, Chennai District.

(Crime No.306 of 2022) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., pleased enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.306 of 2022 pending on the file of the respondent.

For Petitioners : Mr.P.Muthamizhselvakumar For Respondent : Mr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 1/8

O R D E R

The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 09.09.2022, for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 343, 384, 427, 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.306 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the de-facto complainant Anandharaj is that he was employed at Dubai and some persons have handed over a microwave oven to him to transport it to India. On the assurance that a sum of Rs.10,000/- will be paid to him, the de-facto complainant had unknowingly brought the same. Whereas, the microwave oven was taken away by one Vinoth and two days later, some persons to whom the de-facto complainant has to hand over the microwave oven had kidnapped him and taken him to a lodge and assaulted him and then only he came to know that the gold was concealed in the microwave oven and that it was taken away by Vinoth and that they have assaulted him. Based on his complaint, a case in Crime No.306 of 2022 has been registered. Subsequently, the respondent 2/8

police coming to know that the gold was taken away by Vinoth, another case in Crime No.310 of 2022 was also registered.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons. He would further submit that the first and third petitioners (A1 and A2) have relatives in Dubai and they have sent the microwave oven through the de-facto complainant Anandharaj, whereas, he had without the knowledge of the petitioners, concealed the gold in the microwave oven and brought it and the microwave oven was taken by one Vinoth and when the petitioners along with the others questioned about the same, a false complaint has been given as against them. He would also state that the petitioners are not at all aware of the concealment of the gold in the microwave oven and the petitioners were arrested and they are in custody from 09.09.2022. He would further state that other than taking the de-facto complainant for enquiry with regard to the microwave oven, the petitioners have not committed any offence. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioners.

3/8

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that the petitioners are arrayed as A1, A3 and A2 respectively. He would further submit that the first accused had engaged the services of Anandharaj for smuggling gold from Dubai. He would further submit that Vinoth, who is the other accused in Crime No.310 of 2022, coming to know about the smuggling of gold, had snatched the microwave oven and that the petitioners suspecting that the de-facto complainant had colluded with the said Vinoth, had taken him to a room and assaulted him brutally, due to which, he sustained injuries. He would further state that based on the complaint given by the de-facto complainant, a case in Crime No.

306 of 2022 was registered and later, on the complaint given by one Shiyam Kumar, who is the relative of the de-facto complainant, a case in Crime No.310 of 2022 was registered. He would also submit that the gold has been recovered from the custody of A2 in Crime No.310 of 2022. He would further submit that the investigation is pending.

previous cases. Therefore, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner would admit that there are four previous cases as against the third petitioner and submit that out of the previous case, two of them are for the offence under prohibition act and other two are the cases of the year 2017 and recently, no case has been registered as against him. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioners.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and perused the materials available on record.

7. 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 with certain conditions. 5/8

8. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their executing a separate 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 Metropolitan Magistrate Court No.V, Egmore, 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, daily at 10.30 a.m., and 05.30 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 6/8

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.

12.10.2022 ham To

1. The Metropolitan Magistrate No.V, Egmore.

2. The Inspector of Police, K-8, Arumbakkam Police Station, Chennai.

3. The Central Prison, Puzhal.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

7/8

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA., J.

ham 12.10.2022 8/8