Thirunavukkarasu @ Thiruna v. The State Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 04.09.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL CRL OP.No.21628 of 2024 Thirunavukkarasu @ Thiruna ... Petitioner / Accused Vs State rep. by The Inspector of Police, P-1, Pulianthope Police Station, Chennai.
(Crime No.466 of 2024) ... Respondent PRAYER: - The Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, (BNSS) 2023, praying to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in Crime No.466 of 2024, on the file of the respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Muthukumar For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinothkumar Government Advocate (Criminal Side) 1/5
ORDER
The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 19.08.2024, for the offences punishable under Sections 126, 296(b), 115, 308, 311, 125, 324(4) and 351(3) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.466 of 2024, on the file of the respondent, seeks bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that on 19.08.2024, the petitioner along with the other accused, waylaid the defacto complainant, threatened him with knife and robbed Rs.820/-. 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 he petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offence and he is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent would submit that the petitioner along with the other accused, waylaid the defacto complainant and robbed Rs.820/- at knife point. He would 2/5
further submit that there are 14 previous cases against the petitioner and the money was not yet recovered from the petitioner. Hence, he vehemently 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 offences charged against the petitioner and also the number of days of incarceration undergone by the petitioner and that though the petitioner has previous cases, he was granted bail in all the cases and the same are pending for trial and all other aspects, 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 of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, and on further conditions that;
[b] the Petitioner shall report before the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate on all working days at 10.30 a.m., until further orders. [c] the Petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which he is suspected;
3/5
[d] the Petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
[e] the Petitioner shall not abscond 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]; and [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.
04.09.2024 ata To 1.The X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. 2.The Inspector of Police, P-1, Pulianthope Police Station, Chennai.
3.Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
4/5
P.DHANABAL ,J.
ata CRL.OP.No.21628 of 2024 04.09.2024 5/5