E.Rajaram vs State

T.V. Thamilselvi, J

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 03.02.2023 for the alleged offence under Sections 394, 395, 506(2), 294(b), r/w 120(b) of I.P.C. in Crime No.421 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of prosecution is that on 05.12.2022 at about 04.00 p.m., when the defacto complainant, who was a Manager of M/s.Dolls Beauty saloon, was doing their work, the petitioner along with other accused waylaid the shop and at knife point, robbed a sum of Rs.7,750/-, 2 ½ sovereign of gold, 25 gram silver and 8 cell phones from his shop and also criminal intimidated him and threatened him. Hence, the complaint was registered against the petitioner.

The learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that the entire allegation is false, vindictive, wanton and he is no way connected with the offence. He would submit that he has not at all committed any of offence as alleged by the respondent police and due to previous enmity, he has been falsely implicated in this case and he will abide by any condition that may be imposed by this court. He would further submit that the investigation is almost completed and that the petitioner has been suffering incarceration for more than 20 days from 03.02.2023. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for respondent would submit that totally, there are 8 accused involved in this case and he is arrayed as A7. He would submit that when the defacto complainant was working in a beauty saloon, the petitioner along with other accused way laid their shop and at knife point robbed a sum of Rs.7,750/-, 2 ½ sovereigns of gold, 25 gram silver, 8 cell phones and also criminally intimidated him and on investigation, the properties were recovered. He would submit that that if he is released on bail, he would tamper the witnesses and hamper the investigation and the investigation is almost completed. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

Considering the above facts and circumstances, and also considering the fact that the investigation almost completed and now the properties are recovered and on considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each, in which one surety must be a blood surety, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, and on further conditions that:

(a) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned 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 at 10.30 a.m. for the period of three months;

(c) the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature;

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

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

(f) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial 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];

(g) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.