Soundarajan v. The State By Inspector Of Police , Salem
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.11.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
1. Soundarajan
2. Harikrishnan
3. Kesavan
4. Nandhakumar
5. Venkatachalam
6. Thangaraj ... Petitioners/A1 to A6 Vs.
The State by Inspector of Police, Sankari Police Station, Salem District.
(Crime No.375 of 2022) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., pleased to enlarge the petitioners on bail in connection with the case in Crime No.375 of 2022 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Saravanan For Respondent : Mr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 1/6
O R D E R
The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 20.10.2022, for the offences punishable under Section 399 of IPC in Crime No.375 of 2022, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 20.10.2022 at about 10.00.a.m., the petitioners along with other accused were making preparations for committing dacoity. Hence, the case.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, while the petitioners were having food in a eatery, at that time, the SubInspector of Police/defacto complainant had come to that place assumed that the petitioners had passed some lucid commands on him, due to which, false case registered against the petitioners. He would further submit that the petitioners have no bad antecedents against them and they are daily coolies and they are in prison from 20.10.2022. Hence, he seeks for grant of bail to the petitioners.
2/6
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that on 20.10.2022, at about 10.00.a.m., the petitioners were standing in group in a suspicious manner, when the same was questioned by the respondent police, they had given contrary statements and on further enquiry revealed that they were making preparations to commit dacoity. He would fairly submit that there is no recovery of weapon from the petitioners. However, he opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and perused the materials available on record.
6. Taking into consideration the facts of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel and also taking note of the fact that there is no recovery of weapon from the petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. 3/6
8. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their 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 Judicial Magistrate, No.1, Sankari 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 daily at 10.30.a.m., until further orders.
[c] the petitioners shall not abscond during trial; [d] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness during 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 4/6
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 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.
07.11.2022 sma To
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Sankari.
2. The Inspector of Police, Sankari Police Station, Salem District.
3. The Central Prison, Salem.
4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
5/6
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
sma 07.11.2022 6/6