N.Mohan Kennady v. The Sub Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 16/04/2021 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.CHANDRASEKHARAN CRL OP(MD). No.5313 of 2021

1. N.Mohan Kennady

2. N.Sathishkumar ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 3 Vs The State rep by its The Sub Inspector of Police, Mandaikadu Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

Cr.No. 24 of 2021. ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners: Mr.Sankar Prakash C, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.M.Ganesan, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.24 of 2021 on the file of the Respondent Police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who are arrayed as Accused Nos.1 and 3, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 506(ii) and 379 NP of IPC, in Crime No.24 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that after attending pooja in Mandaikadu Temple, when the defacto complainant was coming near Kovilanvillai, the petitioners and other accused persons said to have waylaid the defacto complainant and abused him and criminally intimidated him and also snatched gold chain from him. Hence, the present complaint.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. Though the occurrence said to have taken place on 09.03.2021, the complaint was given only on 12.03.2021. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent Police submitted that the gold chain of the defacto complainant is not yet recovered and that there is no previous case pending against the petitioners.

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that except the offence under Section 506(ii) and 379 IPC, all other offences are bailable in nature and the fact that there is no previous case pending against the petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 6.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, Kanyakumari District, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the said Magistrate and on further condition that: [a] the petitioners and 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 petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation.

[c]the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

[d] the petitioners shall not abscond 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 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 in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560]. [f] If the accused/petitioners thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

sd/- 16.04.2021 / TRUE COPY / / /2021 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

vsg Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

TO 1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERANIEL, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.

2.DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT AT NAGERCOIL.

3.THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANDAIKADU POLICE STATION, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.

4.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1CC to M/s.C.SANKAR PRAKASH, Advocate (SR-3150[I] dated 16/04/2021 )

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.5313 of 2021 Date : 16/04/2021 VB/PN/SAR-IV (22/04/2021) 3P / 6C