Abbas v. State Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 20.11.2024

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Abbas ... Petitioner Vs.

The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, G-2, Periamet Police Station, Chennai District.

(Crime No.259 of 2024).

... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS Act, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail, in connection with the Crime No.259 of 2024, pending investigation on the file of the Respondent Police. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Vasudevan For Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

This Petition has been filed by the petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 01.11.2024, seeking bail in Crime No.259 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 126(2), 296(b), 118(1), 309(4), 311, 351(3) of BNS.

1/6

2. The case of the prosecution is that, defacto complainant is running a shop, on 01.11.2024, petitioner demanded money from the defacto complainant and same was refused, thereby the petitioner at knife point robbed a sum of Rs.2,000/-. Hence, the case.

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 further submitted that in order to detain the petitioner under Act 14, the respondent has foisted this case against the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 01.11.2024 and he is also ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police while opposing for grant of bail to the petitioner would submit that, at knife point, petitioner robbed a sum of Rs.2,000/- from the defacto complainant and threatened him. He would further submit that petitioner has got 8 previous cases.

2/6

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent Police and perused the materials available on record.

6. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned II M.M Court at Egmore, Chennai 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 petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily evening at 6.30 p.m, until further orders;

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during 3/6

investigation or trial;

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned 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]; [f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S. 20.11.2024 dsn 4/6

To

1. The II M.M. Court at Egmore, Chennai.

2.The Inspector of Police, G-2, Periamet Police Station, Chennai District.

3. The Superintendent, The Central Prison, Puzhal.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

5/6

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA.,J.

dsn 20.11.2024 6/6