IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, CHENNAI
Present: Thiru. S. Karthikeyan, M.A., M.L., [Link]., [Link].,
Principal Sessions Judge
Tuesday, the 21st day of January, 2025
[Link].580/2025
in
K.2, Ayanavaram P.S. Crime No.298/2024
Prakash .. Petitioner/Accused
Vs.
State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
K.2, Ayanavaram Police Station,
Chennai. ..Respondent/Complainant.
This petition is coming on this day before this court for hearing in the presence
of M/s. G. Vasudevan, M. Prakash, S. Kalaikumar, the Counsel for the petitioner and
of CPP for respondent and upon hearing them, this Court delivered the following :
ORDER
1. The petitioner, who was arrested on 01.11.2024 for the offence punishable
under Section 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 121(1), 109, 351(3) of BNS in Crime
No.298/2024 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. He
is noway connected with the alleged offence. He has been falsely implicated in this
case. The petitioner was arrested on 01.11.2024 and subsequently detained under Act
14 of 1982. Now the detention order as against the petitioner was set aside by the
Hon'ble High Court of Madras vide order dated 20.01.2025 in [Link].3309/2024.
The petitioner is in custody from 01.11.2024. Hence, prays for granting bail.
4. On the other hand, the learned CPP submits that during the course of wordy
quarrel, this petitioner along with other accused abused the defacto complainant and
assaulted him with stones and caused injury. The victim was treated as in-patient for
2 days and got discharged. The petitioner is having 2 previous cases. However, he
submits that the detention order as against the petitioner has been set aside by the
Hon'ble High Court of Madras.
5. The petitioner has been in custody for more than 2 1/2 months.
Investigation might have been completed by this time. The detention order as against
the petitioner has been set aside by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. Considering
the above facts and the long period of incarceration, this court is inclined to grant bail
to the petitioner subject to condition.
6. 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, each for a likesum to the satisfaction of the learned V Metropolitan
Magistrate, Chennai and on further condition 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 appear before the respondent police daily at
10.00 a.m. until further orders.
(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.
(e) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial
Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the above petitioner in
accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the above
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 petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under
Section 269 of BNS.
Delivered by me in open court today. Digitally signed by
KARTHIKEYAN
KARTHIKEYAN SHANMUGAM
SHANMUGAM Date: 2025.01.21
[Link] +0530
Principal Sessions Judge
Copy to :
1. The V Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai.
2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal.
nmk
