Vikram v. The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 23.10.2024

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL Vikram ... Petitioner Vs.

State represented by, The Inspector of Police, P-5, M.K.B. Nagar Police Station, Chennai District.

(Crime No. 671 of 2024).

... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail, in Crime No.671 of 2024 on the file of the respondent Police.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Muthamizhselvakumar For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinothkumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

The Petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 30.09.2024, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 1/6

191(3), 333, 296(b), 115(2), 109 of BNS 2023, in Crime No.671 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 29.09.2024 at about 7.45 p.m., due to money dispute, the petitioner along with other accused persons went to the house of the defacto complainant and abused his father and also tried to assault him with knife. Hence, the complaint.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. He would further submit that the petitioner was arrested and is in judicial custody for more than 25 days and is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed bail for the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the defacto complainant is an advocate and the other co-accused was granted bail in some other case for which, the fees were paid by the petitioners to the defacto complainant, when it was asked 2/6

for the return of the amount, it was refused by the defacto complainant, due to which, on the date of the alleged occurrence, the petitioner along with other accused persons went to the house of the defacto complainant and abused his father and also tried to assault him with knife. He further submits that nobody was injured in this case. He further submit that the petitioner has no previous case, pending against him. However, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record including the First Information Report.

6. Considering the nature of offence, nobody was injured in this case, there is a dispute between the defacto complainant and the petitioner in respect of payment, considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner from 30.09.2024, and the petitioner has no previous case, pending against him, and also considering all others factors, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.

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

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 X Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai, 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 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;

[c] 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;

[d] the Petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial 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 in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560]; and 4/6

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

23.10.2024 drl To 1.The X Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai.

2.The Inspector of Police, P-5, M.K.B. Nagar Police Station, Chennai District.

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

5/6

P.DHANABAL, J.

drl 23.10.2024 6/6