Sathishprabhu v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 01/10/2020 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.BHARATHIDASAN Sathishprabhu ... Petitioner/Accused No.1 Vs State through The Inspector of Police, Nesamony Nagar Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

Crime No.430 of 2020.

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr. R.Maheswaran, Advocate.

For Respondent : M/s.S.E.Veronica Vincent, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.Sathan Boopathy, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. 430 of 2020 on the file of the Respondent Police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who is arrayed as A1, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 147, 341, 379(NP) and 506(ii) of IPC, in Crime No.430 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is a practicing advocate. On 19.09.2020, when the defacto complainant returned back to his home after completing his work, the petitioner and other accused said to have waylaid the defacto complainant and snatched his gold chain and also assaulted him with hands. Hence, the present complaint.

1/3

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and and the intervener/defacto complainant and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is running an IT company. On the date of occurrence, the defacto complainant was in a drunken mood and parked his car in the middle of the road, which was questioned by the petitioner and others, due to which, there was a wordy quarrel between them, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he seek anticipatory bail.

5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), appearing for the respondent Police submitted that when the defacto complainant returned back to his home after completing his work, the petitioner and other accused said to have waylaid the defacto complainant and snatched his gold chain and also assaulted him with hands. Hence, the crime has been registered.

6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the rival submissions made on either side and on perusal of the materials available on records, it is seen that the occurrence said to have taken place on 19.09.2020 and the FIR has been registered on 24.09.2020 after five days and even as per the FIR, the occurrence said to have place in a wordy quarrel, considering the above circumstances, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. 7.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or his appearance, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Tirunelveli, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.

(b)the petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation.

(c)the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

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

2/3

(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]; and; (f)if the accused/petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

sd/- 01/10/2020 / TRUE COPY / / /2020 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

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 NO.1, TIRUNELVELI.

2.DO THRO'THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.

3.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE NESAMONY NAGAR POLICE STATION, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.

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

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.10661 of 2020 Date :01/10/2020 vsg AE/SMA/SAR-II (09.10.2020) 3P 5C 3/3