Chandrasekar vs State

A.D.Jagadish Chandira, J

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 30.12.2022 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 450, 342, 395 & 397 of IPC, in Crime No.311 of 2022 on the file of the respondent Police, seeks bail.

The case of the prosecution as per the de-facto complainant, Mani, is that on 08.11.2022 at about 2.00 p.m., when he was at home along with his wife, the accused have trespassed into his house and by threatening the de-facto complainant and his wife with knife, tied their hands along with chair and closed their mouth. Thereafter, the accused have robbed a sum of Rs.28,00,000/- and 18 sovereigns of gold jewels from their house. Hence the case.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He also submitted that similarly placed co-accused have been granted by this Court in Crl.O.P.Nos.32575 of 2022 & 3181 of 2023 vide orders dated 28.12.2022 & 24.02.2023. He further submitted that the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offence and he is suffering incarceration from 30.12.2022 and he is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner, who is arrayed as A21 in this case, accompanied with other accused, have committed theft of Rs.28,00,000/- and 18 sovereigns of gold jewels from the de-facto complainant's house. He further submitted that major part of the investigation is over and a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- has been recovered and if he is released on bail, he would tamper the witnesses and hamper the investigation. Therefore, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the materials available on record.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also taking note of the fact that the investigation has almost been completed and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties (out of which one surety should be a blood related surety and should produce document to show his/her means), each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kumarapalayam, 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 stay at Tiruvannamalai and report before the Inspector of police, Vettavalam Police Station, everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of eight weeks, and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during 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 abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.