Suriya @ Vellai Suriya v. The State Rep By Its,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated :29.10.2024

CORAM

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice P.DHANABAL CRL OP.No.27164 of 2024 Surya @ Vellai Surya ... Petitioner Vs State Rep. by its Sub Inspector of Police, N2, Kasimedu Police Station, Chennai.

... Respondent [Cr. No.586 of 2024] For Petitioner : Mr.G.Ezhilbalaji For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of B.N.S.S PRAYER: - The Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 483 of the BNSS praying to grant bail to the petitioner in Crime No.586 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police.

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 08.10.2024 for the offence punishable under Section 296(b), 115(2), 1/6

309(4), 311, 351(3) of BNS Act 2023 & Section 4 of TNPHW Act in Crime No.586 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with another accused went to the defacto complainant's house and asked about her son. When the defacto complainant replied that her son is not in house, the accused persons abused her in filthy language and robbed Rs.1,000/- from her at knife point and attacked the son of the defacto complainant and escaped from the spot. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. However, on instructions, the learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

2/6

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the petitioner along with another accused went to the defacto complainant's house and asked about her son. When the defacto complainant replied that her son is not in house, the accused persons abused her in filthy language and robbed Rs.1,000/- from her at knife point and attacked the son of the defacto complainant and escaped from the spot and 14 previous cases are pending against the petitioner and further, considering the gravity of offence, he opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

5.

Heard both side counsels and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the representation made on either side and considering the nature of offence charged against the petitioner, money involved in this case and considering that though the petitioner is having 14 previous cases, those cases are not similar kind of offence, in all cases, he was released on bail and also considering the period of 3/6

incarceration undergone by the petitioner, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute 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 XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 A.M, until further orders.

[c] the petitioner shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond.

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

[e] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which he is suspected.

[f] 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 4/6

to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. [g] 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]. [h] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

29.10.2024 index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order nsl 5/6

P.DHANABAL ,J, nsl To

1. The XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.

2. The Sub Inspector of Police, N2, Kasimedu Police Station, Chennai.

3. Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai.

4.The Government Advocate (Crl.Side), High Court, Madras. CRL.OP.No.27164 of 2024 29.10.2024 6/6