Ravichandran v. State Rep By Its

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 20.10.2022

CORAM

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

State Rep By its, The Inspector of Police, Karumalaikoodal Police Station, Salem District.

(Crime No.181 of 2022) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., pleased to order enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.181/2022 on the file of the Respondent.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Deepak Kumar 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 30.08.2022, for the offences punishable under Sections 392 & 397 of IPC, in Crime No.181 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 had waylaid the defacto complainant and robbed a sum of Rs.500/- from the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an accused in Crime No.178 of 2022 registered by the respondent police for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and he was granted bail in that case and thereafter, the respondent police have compelled the petitioner to appear before the police station, since, the petitioner did not appear, a false complaint has been registered as against the petitioner. He would also submit that the petitioner is only aged about 19 years and that he is prepared to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court and he is also ready to furnish sureties for his release on bail. 2/6

Therefore, 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 along with the other accused had waylaid the defacto complainant and robbed a sum of Rs.500/- from the defacto complainant. He would also submit that no recovery has been made from the petitioner and he has one previous case as against him. Therefore, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

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

6. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on 3/6

his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties, out of which, one surety should be either the father or the mother of the petitioner, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Mettur, 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 daily at 10.30 a.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. 20.10.2022 rgi To

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.2, Mettur.

2. The Inspector of Police, Karumalaikoodal Police Station, Salem District.

3. The Central Prison, Salem.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

5/6

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA., J.

rgi 20.10.2022 6/6