Vicky @ Jopra Vicky v. The State Rep By Its,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 23.09.2024

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL Vicky @ Jopra Vicky ...Petitioner/Accused No.1 Vs.

The State Represented by Inspector of Police, Puzhal Police Station, Chennai.

Crime No.678 of 2024

...Respondent/Complainant

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. Act, 2023, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.678 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rajadurai For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side) 1/6

O R D E R

The petitioner/A1, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 06.09.2024 for the offences under Sections 309 and 311 of the BNS, 2023, in Crime No.678 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/A1 along with other accused have waylaid the defacto complainant, threatened the defacto complainant and robbed a sum of Rs.3000/- at knife-point from him. Hence, the case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/A1 submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person, he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution, and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He also submitted that the co-accused/A2 in this case has been granted bail by this Court. He further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 06.09.2024. He further submitted that the petitioner is a law-abiding citizen; that he is ready to furnish substantial sureties for his due release on bail; and therefore, he prays for the grant of 2/6

bail to the petitioner.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent police submitted that the petitioner/A1 and other accused waylaid the de facto complainant, threatened the de facto complainant and robbed a sum of Rs.3000/- at knife-point from him. He further submitted that there are ten previous cases pending against the petitioner; and that the part of the money was only recovered. Hence, he strongly opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the representation made by both sides, the nature of offences charged against the petitioner, that the money involved in this case and also the part of the money was recovered and already the co-accused was released on bail, that though the petitioner has some previous cases, in all cases, he was granted bail, and also taking into consideration the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions: 3/6

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing 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 learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Madhavaram, and on further conditions that:

[a] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders; [b] the petitioner shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond;

[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; [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 or tamper with the evidence;

[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 4/6

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.

23.09.2024 dk To 1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Madhavaram.

2.The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison Puzhal.

3.The Inspector of Police, Puzhal Police Station, Chennai.

4.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

5/6

P.DHANABAL, J.

dk 23.09.2024 6/6