High CourtsSingle Bench(2023) 10 MAD CK 0176

Elangovan vs State

Madras High Court · Decided on 26 October 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
R.Sakthivel, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Original Petition (MD) No. 19291 Of 2023

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

12 paragraphs · 469 words

R.Sakthivel, J

1.

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 02.09.2023 for the alleged offence under Sections 294(b), 384, 342, 506(ii) IPC r/w 67 of IT (Amended)Act 2008 in Crime No.348 of 2023, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2.The petitioner is arrayed as A2. A1 is the wife of the petitioner. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.08.2023, A1 called the defacto complainant over the phone, in order to hand over her document towards a loan already received from the defacto complainant by her. By believing the words of A1, the defacto complainant went to the accused house where other accused were present. The accused persons threatened the defacto complainant and removed his dress and took his nude photo and demanded the money from him. Hence, the case.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that there is money transaction between the defacto complainant and the accused persons and hence, the defacto complainant preferred a false complaint and the petitioner is in judicial custody from 02.09.2023 and hence, he seeks bail.

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner herein is arrayed as A2 and he is the husband of A1. The petitioner and other accused committed the offence as stated in FIR. Hence, if bail is granted, the petitioner will cause threat to the defacto complainant and therefore, he objected to grant bail.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner appeared before the Court through video conference. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appeared before the Court physically. This Court has heard both side submissions and perused the materials.

6.Considering the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody for the past 56 days and also considering the nature of allegations made against the petitioner and the nature of offence allegedly committed by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with conditions.

7.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed subjected to the following conditions:-

i)the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thanjavur,

ii)the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 pm until further orders.

iii)the petitioner shall not cause threat to the defacto complainant and witnesses.

iv)on breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions are imposed by themselves as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283].