Rajadurai v. State By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.10.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL 1.Rajadurai 2.Monish 3.Neelankandan 4.Mohammed Rafique ... Petitioners Vs.
The State rep by The Inspector of Police Neyveli Township Police Station, Cuddalore District.
( Crime No.281 of 2024)
...Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. Act, 2023, praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime No.281 of 2024 on the file of respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Anandharaj For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinothkumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side) 1/6
****
O R D E R
The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 22.09.2024 for the offences under Sections 310(4) BNS Act r/w 25(1-A) of Arms Act in Crime No.281 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners along with other accused planned to commit dacoity. Hence, the respondent police has registered a case against the petitioner. 3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. They have not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. He would further submit that the petitioners were arrested and is in judicial custody from 22.09.2024 and is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed bail for the petitioners. 2/6
4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) opposes the grant of bail to the petitioners by stating that the petitioners along with other accused planned to commit dacoity. He further submitted that there are 4 previous cases pending against A1 and 3 previous cases pending against A2 and 7 previous cases against A3 and 4 previous case pending against A4.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 6.Considering the representation made on both sides, the nature of offence, the petitioners have some previous cases, in all cases, bail was granted to the petitioners, and also taking into consideration the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioners and taking all other aspects, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners with certain conditions:
7. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand 3/6
only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the District Munsif-Cum-Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli and on further conditions that:
[a] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m until further orders. [b] the petitioners shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond;
[c] the Petitioners 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 Petitioners 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 Petitioners 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 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 4/6
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.
22.109.2024 smn To 1.The District Munsif-Cum-Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli 2.The Cuddalore Prison.
3.The Inspector of Police Neyveli Township Police Station, Cuddalore District.
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
5/6
P.DHANABAL, J.
smn 22.10.2024 6/6