K.Packiaraj v. The State Rep By The

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 18.10.2022

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA K.Packiaraj ... Petitioner Vs.

The State Rep. by the The Inspector of Police, G-2 Periamet Police Station, Chennai.

(Crime No.170 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.170 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police G-2 Periamet Police Station, Chennai considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.S.Senthilkumar 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 25.08.2022 for the offences punishable under Section 341, 392 IPC @ 120 B, 341, 392 IPC in Crime No.170 of 2022 on the file of the Respondent Police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the Prosecution is that the petitioner along with the other accused waylaid the de-facto complainant and by pushing him down, robbed a sum of Rs.32,000/- from him. Hence, the case.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that this is the second bail application before this Court. He would further submit that the petitioner is an innocent person with 60% of disability. He would also submit that the respondent, on suspecting that the petitioner is also a member of the accused gang, has implicated him in this case. He would also submit that the petitioner was also implicated in yet another case in Crime No.168 of 2022 registered on the file of the D2, Anna Salai Police Station and this Court by an order dated 07.09.2022 in Crl.O.P.No.21521 of 2022 has 2/6

granted bail in the said crime number with certain conditions. He would further submit that the petitioner is in custody from 25.08.2022 and hence, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner is a habitual offender against whom there are three previous cases pending. Hence, he oppose to grant bail to the petitioner.

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

6. Taking into consideration the facts and the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, 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 II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, 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 everyday at 1.30 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.

18.10.2022 ham To

1. The II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

2. The Inspector of Police, G-2 Periamet Police Station, Chennai.

3. The Central Prison, Puzhal.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

5/6

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA ,J.

ham 18.10.2022 6/6