Baskar v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 27.10.2022

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Baskar ... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.25330 of 2022 1.Mani 2.Ravikumar 3.Paramjothi 4.Vaithiyalingam ... Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.25332 of 2022 Vs.

State Represented by the Inspector of Police, Perundurai Police Station, Erode District.

In Crime No.715 of 2022 ... Respondent in both Crl.O.P.'s PRAYER in Crl.O.P.No.25330 of 2022: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., pleased to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.5 in Crime No.715 of 2022 Perundurai Police Station pending disposal. PRAYER in Crl.O.P.No.25332 of 2022: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., pleased to enlarge the petitioners/Accused No.1 to 4 in Crime No.715 of 2022 Perundurai Police Station pending disposal.

1/7

For Petitioner in both Crl.O.P.'s :

Mr.J.Hariharan Alias Harish For Respondent in both Crl.O.P.'s :

Mr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl.side) For Intervenor in both Crl.O.P.'s :

Mr.B.Mohan COMMON ORDER The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.25330 of 2022, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 25.09.2022 and the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.25332 of 2022, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 24.09.2022 respectively for the offences punishable under Section man missing @ Sections 364, 368, 506(2) an 109 of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act of 2003 in Crime No.715 of 2022 on the file of the respondent Police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the de-facto complainant is that his father had borrowed loan from A5 and due to his financial problems he was unable to repay the loan. Further allegation is that on the instructions of A5, all the other accused have kidnapped the de-facto complainant's father in a car and taken him to a lodge and had demanded ransom and also to settle 2/7

the amount. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that a case of money dispute between the parties is exaggerated and a false complaint has been given as if the petitioners have kidnapped the de-facto complainant's father for non payment of money. He would further submit that the de-facto complainant's father and the accused persons are very well known to each other and there was a dispute with regard to the share trading and there was a quarrel between them. During such time, the de-facto complainant's father was injured and the petitioners have taken him to the hospital and based on the complaint, the petitioners were suspected to have kidnapped the de-facto complainant's father. He would further submit that the petitioners are in custody from 24.09.2022 and 25.09.2022 respectively and the major part of the investigation is over. Hence, he seeks for grant of bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioners are money lender and they have lend money to the de-facto complainant's father. Since there was some delay 3/7

in repayment, the petitioners have joined together and kidnapped the defacto complainant's father. He would further submit that the investigation is pending. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioners.

5. The learned counsel for the intervenor would submit that the petitioners are usurious money lender and they had demanded excess amount from the de-facto complainant's father. They have kidnapped the de-facto complainant's father and assaulted him, where the victim had sustained injuries. However, the accused have taken him to the hospital were they were arrested. Hence he opposed for grant of bail to the petitioners.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondent 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 and also the period of incarnation of the petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.

4/7

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 learned Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai 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 everyday at 10.30 a.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 5/7

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.

27.10.2022 (1/3) mpl 6/7

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA.,J.

mpl To

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai.

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

3. Central Jail, Coimbatore.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

27.10.2022 7/7