K.Perumal v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 16.12.2022 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI K.Perumal, S/o.Kathirvel ... Petitioner Vs.

The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Perunagar Police Station, Kancheepuram Dt.

(Crime No.312 of 2022) ...

Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.312 of 2022 pending on the file of respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Punniakoti For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side.) 1/6

O R D E R

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 02.12.2022 for the alleged offence under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324, 397, 506(ii) I.P.C. in Crime No.312 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of prosecution is that the defacto complainant is working in PKS crushers. One Nithiyanandam also working along with him and after completion of his work on his way to his house at Manampathy junction road, the petitioner along with others followed him with an intention to commit murder of Manager, thereby assaulted him with wooden log and knife on the back side of head, due to which, he fell down unconscious on the spot itself, wherein the accused Selvam threatened him to set fire the place, in which they were residing and criminally intimidated them so as to cause their death and thereafter, he was admitted in the hospital. Hence, the complaint was registered against the petitioner.

2/6

3. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that he is no way connected with the offence. He would submit that he has not at all committed any of offence as alleged by the respondent police and he has been falsely implicated in this case and he will abide by any condition imposed by this court. He would further submit that the investigation is almost completed and that the petitioner has been suffering incarceration for more than 13 days from 02.12.2022. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for respondent would submit that totally, there are four accused involved in this case. He would submit that the defacto complainant is a Manager of PKS Crushers and he removed the petitioner from service, aggrieved over the same, he waylaid him and attacked him, thereby, he sustained simple injury and subsequently after treatment, he was discharged from the hospital. He would submit that that if he is released on bail, he would tamper the witnesses and hamper the investigation and the investigation is almost completed. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

3/6

5. Considering the above facts and circumstances, and also the fact that the injured discharged from the hospital and the investigation almost completed and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

6. 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 District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Uthiramerur, and on further conditions that:

(a) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar Card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity;

(b) the petitioner shall report before the respondent police on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m. for the period of two months ;

(c) the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature;

(d) the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

4/6

(e) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness 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 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];

(g) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

16.12.2022 rpp To

1. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Uthiramerur.

2. Inspector of Police, Perunagar Police Station, Kancheepuram Dt.

3. The Superintendent of Prison, Sub-Jail, Kancheepuram, 4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

5/6

T.V. THAMILSELVI, J.

rpp Crl.O.P.No.31101 of 2022 16.12.2022 6/6