E Bail 22122020

IN
THE COURT OF SESSIONS AT CHENNAI
Present: Thiru R. Selvakumar, B.A., M.L.,
Principal Sessions Judge
Tuesday, the 22nd day of December, 2020
Crl.M.P.No.12863/2020
in
P.1, Pulianthope P.S. Cr.No.1191/2020
Mano .. Petitioner/Accused.
Vs.
State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
P1 Pulianthope Police Station,
Chennai. ..Respondent/Complainant.
This petition is coming on this day be fore me for hearing, upon hearing
M/s. U. Yuvaraj, D. Gopi Krishnan, G. Vasudevan, Counsel for the petitioner and of CPP
for respondent, this Court delivered the following :
ORDER
1. The petitioner, who was arrested on 7.10.2020 for the offence punishable under
Section 294(b), 392, 506(ii) IPC r/w 397 IPC in Crime No.1191/2020 on the file of the
respondent police, seek bail.
2. The petitioner’s counsel and the CPP were heard through Video Conference.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petition for cancellation of bail
against the petitioner is pending before this court and thus seeks permission to withdraw
the petition at present.
4. Considering the request of the petitioner’s counsel, this petition is dismissed as
withdrawn.
Delivered by me today.

Sd./ R. Selvakumar
nmk
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS AT CHENNAI
Crl.M.P.No.13590/2020
in
C.2, Elephant Gate P.S., Crime No.927/2020
V. Rajasekar .. Petitioner/Accused.
Vs.
State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police(L&O),
C.2, Elephant Gate Police Station,
This petition is coming on this day before me for hearing, upon hearing
M/s. A. Thirumaran, E. Ashok Kumar and G. Vinodh Kumar, Counsel for the petitioner and
of CPP for respondent, this Court delivered the following :
ORDER
1. The petitioner, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police, for the
alleged offences u/s.353 of IPC and Sec.7 and 9(2) of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Smoking
and Spitting Act in Cr.No.927/2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory
bail.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned CPP were heard through Video
Conference.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has
not committed any offence as alleged. Since the petitioner is known to A1, he has been
falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner has no previous case. Arrested accused was
already enlarged on bail and one of the coaccused was granted anticipatory bail by this
court. Hence, he prays for granting anticipatory bail.
4. On the other hand, the learned CPP submits that the petitioner along with other
accused were found in possession of banned tobacco products in 10 bundles, each bundle
containing 50 pouches. When the police tried to apprehend the accused, two of them
escaped and one accused was caught redhanded.
5. As per the F.I.R., the accused addressed the police people in singular. Except
that, no other act of obstructing the police officer from discharging the duty is reported. In
fact, two of them fledaway from the scene. Prima facie, Sec.353 of IPC is not attracted.
Arrested accused was released on bail and other accused was granted anticipatory bail by
this court. Considering all those circumstances, this court is inclined to grant anticipatory
bail to the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest
or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order, before the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai on condition that the petitioner
shall execute 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 respondent police or the police officer
who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on
further condition that
[a] the petitioner and 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 report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 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 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 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
229A IPC.
Sd./ R. Selvakumar
Copies to:
1. The VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai.
2. CPP, Chennai.
3. The Inspector of Police(L&O), C2, Elephant Gate Station, Chennai.
nmk
Crl.M.P.No.13590/2020
Crl.M.P.No.13631/2020
in
P.R.C.No.68/2020
(on the file of XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Chennai)
in
F.5, Choolaimedu P.S. Cr.No.605/2020
Easu @ Easwaran .. Petitioner/Accused.
Vs.
State Rep. by
F.5, Choolaimedu Police Station,
This petition is coming on this day be fore me for hearing, upon hearing the CPP for
respondent and no representation having been made for the petitioner and his counsel
M/s. M. Surekha, K. Muthuvel, this Court delivered the following :
ORDER
Section 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 326, 307, 506(ii) IPC @ 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 324, 326,
307, 506(ii) r/w. 149 of IPC in Crime No.605/2020 on the file of the respondent police, seek
bail.
2. Learned CPP was heard through Video Conference. No representation for the
petitioner.
3. According to learned CPP, the petitioner was detained under Act 14 of 1982 and
HCP filed on behalf of the petitioner is pending before the Hon’ble High Court. Further
the petitioner is having 4 previous cases. Considering all the above facts, this petition is
dismissed.
Sd./ R. Selvakumar
nmk
Crl.M.P.No.13729/2020
in
H1 Washermenpet P.S., Crime No.5072/2020
Chitra .. Petitioner/Accused
Vs.
State Rep. by
H1, Washermenpet Police Station,
The petition is coming on this day before me for hearing, upon hearing the CPP for
respondent and no representation having been made for the petitioner and her counsel
M/s. P.S. Muralidhara Rao, G.M. Sudalaimani, this Court delivered the following :
ORDER
Sections 174 Cr.P.C. @ 147, 341, 294(b), 323, 342 and 302 IPC in Crime No.5072/2020
on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. Learned CPP was heard through Video Conference. No representation for the
petitioner.
3. According to learned CPP, already bail was granted to the petitioner in

Crl.M.P.No.12996/2020, dated 10.12.2020. Recording the same, this petition is dismissed.
Sd./ R. Selvakumar
nmk
Crl.M.P.No.13731/2020
in
K.11, CMBT P.S. Crime No.820/2020
Kumar .. Petitioner/Accused.
Vs.
State Rep. by
K.11, CMBT Police Station,
M/s. A. Umar Farook Ali, M. Elumalai, S. Vijaykumar, S.Y. Syed Parvez, Counsel for the
petitioner and the CPP for respondent, this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
Section 379 IPC in Crime No.820/2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. He is
noway connected with the alleged offence. Petitioner’s name does not find a place in the
FIR. He has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner is in custody from 7.12.2020
and prays for granting bail.
4. On the other hand, learned CPP submits that this petitioner along with other
accused came in a bike and snatched defacto complainant’s mobile phone. According to
learned CPP, stolen mobile phone was recovered from this petitioner and the petitioner was
arrested recently and investigation is pending and thus seriously objects for granting bail.
5. It is a case of snatching. Stolen mobile was recovered from this petitioner.
Considering the nature of offence and short duration of custody, this court is not inclined to
grant bail to the petitioner at present.
6. Hence, this petition is dismissed.
Sd./ R. Selvakumar
nmk Principal Sessions Judge
Crl.M.P.No.13732/2020
in
R.4, P.S. Crime No.717/2020
Nishanthi .. Petitioner/Accused.
Vs.
State Rep. by
R.4, Soundarapandiyanar Angadi Police Station,
M/s. M. Hussaini Basha, Shaik Abu Thahir, Counsel for the petitioner and the CPP for
respondent, this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. She is
FIR. She has been falsely implicated in this case. As per FIR, two gold bangles weighing
7.220 gms were missing. But as per Mahazar, the property alleged to be recovered is 2 gold
rings and 1 pair of gold ear rings. The difference in the property reveals that it is a false
case. The petitioner is in custody from 15.12.2020 and prays for granting bail.
4. The petitioner had committed theft of gold bangles weighing about 7.220 gms
from the defacto complainant’s jewellery shop. The worth of the property is Rs.42,124/.
CCTV footage is available to connect the accused in the crime. The petitioner was arrested
only on 15.12.2020. Considering the nature of offence and short duration of custody, this
court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at present.
Sd./ R. Selvakumar
Crl.M.P.No.13733/2020
in
B.1, North Beach P.S. Crime No.1859/2020
N. Radhakrishnan .. Petitioner/Accused.
Vs.
State Rep. by
B.1, North Beach Police Station,
M/s. C. Balaji, K. Madhana Counsel for the petitioner and the CPP for respondent, this
Court delivered the following:
ORDER
Section 174 Cr.P.C., @ 302 IPC in Crime No.1859/2020 on the file of the respondent
police, seeks bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is an accidental fall from the
overbridge under the influence of alcohol. The petitioner is noway connected with the
alleged offence. He is in custody from 12.11.2020 and prays for granting bail.
4. On the other hand, learned CPP submits that there was no corresponding injury on
the deceased out of alleged fall. There was a blunt injury to the neck and head and that is
why, the case has been altered into Sec.302 IPC and thus seriously objects for granting bail.
5. The accused was arrested on 12.11.2020. Considering the short duration of
custody and loss of a valuable life, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at
present.
Sd./ R. Selvakumar
nmk
Crl.M.P.No.13734/2020
in
H.1, Old Washermenpet P.S. Crime No.5188/2020
Palani @ Bhavana .. Petitioner/Accused.
Vs.
State Rep. by
H.1, Old Washermenpet Police Station,
M/s. G.B. Motcham and J. Kather Hussain, Counsel for the petitioner and the CPP for
ORDER
Section 309 IPC @ 174 Cr.P.C., @ 306 of IPC in Crime No.5188/2020 on the file of the
respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The petitioners’ counsel and the CPP were heard through Video Conference.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the petitioner and the deceased
are Transgenders. Even as per the contentions of the FIR, the deceased borrowed money
from 7 persons/transgenders and unable to return the money to them and due to which,
there was a quarrel on the fateful day and she set fire on her. However, due to fear, at the
first instance, she gave statement to the Doctor as if she caught fire while cooking. Initially,
the case was registered only u/s.309 IPC, subsequently, it has been altered into Sec.306 IPC
and the present petitioner was arrested on 6.12.2020 for the commission of suicide by the
deceased. The petitioner is noway connected for the self immolation of the victim. The
petitioner has no role at all and hence prays for granting bail.
4. On the other hand, learned CPP submits that the deceased had given Dying
Declaration implicating the petitioner for her attempt on her life. Based on which, the
petitioner was arrested in this case on 6.12.2020 only and she strongly opposes this petition.
5. The accused abused the victim for non payment of amount borrowed by her. Such
vulgar words have been used so as to drive the deceased to commit suicide by self
immolation. The accused was remanded only on 6.12.2020. The learned counsel for the
petitioner invites this court’s attention to the decision of the “Madurai Bench of Madras
High Court in Rajamannar case(2014)” as if the accused cannot be held responsible. No
doubt it is a matter for defense during trial, At present, a valuable life has been lost. The
accused is in custody only from 6.12.2020. Considering the short duration of custody and
loss of valuable life, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at present.
Sd./ R. Selvakumar
nmk
Crl.M.P.No.13735/2020
in
R.5, Virugambakkam P.S. Crime No.675/2020
Murthy .. Petitioner/Accused.
Vs.
State Rep. by
R.5, Virugambakkam Police Station,
M/s. M. James and R. Gopi, Counsel for the petitioner and the CPP for respondent, this
Court delivered the following:
ORDER
Sections 294(b), 341, 307, 506(ii) IPC in Crime No.675/2020 on the file of the respondent
police, seeks bail.
noway connected with the alleged offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case.
Injured has been discharged from the hospital. The petitioner is in custody from 30.11.2020
4. On the other hand, learned CPP submits that this petitioner waylaid the defacto
complainant’s son and demanded money for consuming liquor, that on his refusal, he
attacked him with iron rod on his head. Due to injury, the victim fell unconscious and he
was admitted to hospital and after 12 days of taking treatment as inpatient he was
discharged only on 11.12.2020. She further submits that the petitioner’s earlier petition was
dismissed only on 15.12.2020 and there is no change of circumstance and thus seriously
objects for granting bail.
5. It is a case of 307 IPC. The victim was treated as inpatient for 12 days.
Considering the nature of injury inflicted on the victim and the period of treatment and no
change of circumstance after dismissal of earlier petition, this court is not inclined to grant
bail to the petitioner at present.

Sd./ R. Selvakumar
nmk
Crl.M.P.No.13738/2020
in
C.3, Seven Wells P.S. Crime No.1424/2020
Jageer Hussain .. Petitioner/Accused.
Vs.
State Rep. by
C.3, Seven Wells Police Station,
This petition is coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of
M/s. S.N. Arunkumar and R. Nesarajan, Counsel for the petitioner and of CPP for the
respondent and upon hearing them, this Court delivered the following
ORDER
Section 341, 336, 427, 392, 397 and 506(ii) IPC in Crime No.1424/2020 on the file of the
2. The counsel for the petitioner and the CPP were heard through Video Conference.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petitioner is innocent of the
offence. He is no way connected with the alleged offence. Being the friend of A1, this
petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Coaccused were granted bail by this
court. The petitioner is in custody from 29.09.2020 and hence, prays for granting bail.
4. On the other hand, learned CPP submits that this petitioner along with other
accused robbed Rs.1000/ and a wrist watch from the defacto complainant at knife point.
She further submits that this petitioner is a habitual offender and thus objects the grant of
bail.
5. The petitioner has been in custody for the past 85 days. According to CPP, this
petitioner is having 7 previous cases. However, considering the duration of custody and
the fact that coaccused were already granted bail, this court is inclined to grant bail to the
petitioner with following conditions.
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 VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai and on
(a) the sureties shall affix their photograph 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 appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 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 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 petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section
229A IPC.
Sd./ R. Selvakumar
Copies to:
1. The VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai.
2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal.
nmk
Crl.M.P.No.13738/2020
Crl.M.P.No.13742/2020
in
K11, C.M.B.T. P.S. Crime No.845/2020
1. John
2. Sugumar
3. Jone
4. Denial
5. Srinivasan .. Petitioners/Accused
Vs.
State Rep. by
K11, C.M.B.T. Police Station,
This petition is coming on this day be fore me for hearing, upon hearing
M/s.P.Krishna Moorthy, K.Rohini and S.Gopi, Counsel for the petitioners and of CPP for
respondent, this Court delivered the following :
ORDER
1. The petitioners, who were arrested on 8.12.2020 for the offences punishable under
Section 294(b), 147, 148, 324, 307 and 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.845/2020 on the file of
the respondent police seek bail.
2. The petitioners’ counsel and the CPP were heard through Video Conference.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners belongs to same
family. The injured was discharged from the hospital. The petitioners gave a complaint
against the defacto complainant and the same is registered in Arumbakkam P.S.
Cr.No.1139/2020. The petitioners have no bad antecedent. They are in custody from
8.12.2020 and prays for bail.
4. On the other hand, the learned CPP objects granting bail stating that due to
previous enmity, the petitioners and others assaulted the defacto complainant with knife
with an intention to kill him. The victim sustained severe injuries and admitted in the
hospital for four days as inpatient. She objects for granting bail.
5. It appears that there exists money dispute between the defacto complainant and
A1. Entire family members were remanded to custody. The petitioners have been in
custody for the past 15 days. Injured has been discharged from the hospital. Considering
all the above facts, this court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners with following
conditions.
6. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their executing
a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/ each (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each
for a likesum to the satisfaction of the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai and on
(a) the sureties shall affix their photograph 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 petitioners shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. until
further orders.
(c) the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during
investigation or trial.
(d) the petitioners 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the
conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned
(f) If the petitioners thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under
Section 229A IPC.
Sd./ R. Selvakumar
Copies to:
1. The V Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai.
2. The Superintendent, SubJail, Chengalpattu.
nmk
Crl.M.P.No.13742/2020
Crl.M.P.No.13740/2020
in
P.R.C.No.106/2020
(on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai)
in
P.2, Otteri P.S. Crime No.889/2020
Kalidass @ Raja @ Kattu Raja .. Petitioner/Accused.
Vs.
State Rep. by
P.2, Otteri Police Station,
M/s. B.M. Santharam and G. Sivakumar, Counsel for the petitioner and of CPP for
respondent, this Court delivered the following :
ORDER
Section 294(b), 307, 506(ii) IPC @ 302 IPC in Crime No.889/2020 on the file of the
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for
more than 100 days. Investigation is over. Charge sheet was also filed and hence prays
for granting bail.
4. On the other hand, learned CPP submits that the petitioner is having 4 previous
cases and objects grant of bail.
5. Learned CPP also submitted the list of 4 previous cases against the petitioner.
On perusal of the same, all the four cases referred by learned CPP is of the year 2014.
Considering the duration of custody and the fact that investigation is over, this court is
inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to following conditions.
bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/ (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties for a likesum to
the satisfaction of the X 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 Sessions Judge may obtain a copy of their Aadhar Card or Bank Pass
Book to ensure their identity;
(b) the petitioner shall appear before the said court daily at 10.30 a.m. until further
orders.
(c) 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
229A IPC.
Sd./ R. Selvakumar
Copy to :
1. The X Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai.
2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
nmk
Crl.M.P.No.13740/2020
Crl.M.P.No.13703/2020
in
F.3, Nungambakkam P.S., Crime No.1155/2019
1. R.K. Soundarrajan @ Sowrirajan
2. V. Sathish Kumar
3. Elayaraja
4. Arun Sudhakar .. Petitioners/Accused.
Vs.
State Rep. by
F.3, Nungambakkam Police Station,
M/s. B. Thiyagarajan, Counsel for the petitioners and of CPP for respondent, this Court
delivered the following :
ORDER
1. The petitioners, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police, for the
alleged offences u/s. 341, 448, 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC in Cr.No.1155/2019 on the file of
the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned CPP were heard through Video
Conference.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was financial transaction
between the petitioners and the defacto complainant’s company. An exaggerated complaint
has been given. Except Sec.506(i) IPC, other offences are bailable and hence prays for
granting anticipatory bail.
4. On the other hand learned CPP objects granting for anticipatory bail stating that it
is a case of 506(i) IPC.
5. On perusal of the complaint, the allegation is that somebody closed the shutter of
the defacto complainant’s company from outside. When the inmate tried to open the
shutter, the petitioners herein quarrelled with him demanding their balance. So, prima facie,
it appears that the dispute is over non payment of money by the defacto complainant. The
complaint was given only after 10 days as an afterthought. Except Sec.506(i) IPC, other
offences are bailable. Custodial interrogation is not necessary. Hence, this court is inclined
to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
6. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of
arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order, before the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai on condition that the
petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/ each (Rupees Ten Thousand only)
with two sureties each for a likesum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police
officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and
on further condition that
[a] the petitioners and 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 petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. until
further orders.
[c] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during
[d] the petitioners 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the
conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned
Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Supreme Court in P.K. Shaji Vs. State of
Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560].
[f] If the petitioners thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section
229A IPC.
Sd./ R. Selvakumar
Copies to:
1. The XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai.
2. CPP, Chennai.
3. The Inspector of Police, F.3, Nungambakkam Police Station, Chennai.
nmk
Crl.M.P.No.13703/2020
Crl.M.P.No.13741/2020
in
K.1, Sembium P.S. Crime No.1317/2020
Rajesh @ Mattu Ravi .. Petitioner/Accused.
Vs.
State Rep. by
K.1, Sembium Police Station,
M/s. P. Parthipan and J. Ram Kumar, Counsel for the petitioner and the CPP for
ORDER
FIR. He has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner is in custody from 4.12.2020
4. It is case of snatching. The petitioner along with another accused came in a biked
snatched gold Thali Chain weighing 7 sovereigns from the defacto complainant. Nowadays,
these kind of offences are on the rise of the city. Hence, this court is not inclined to grant
bail to the petitioner at present.
Sd./ R. Selvakumar
nmk
Crl.M.P.No.13652/2020
in
Crl.M.P.No.10806/2020
in
C.C.No.2605/2020
(on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai)
in
Crime No.862/2020
Nari @ Balaji .. Petitioner/Accused.
Vs
State by:
K.10, Koyambedu Police Station,
This petition coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of
M/s. G. Sivakumar and B.M. Shantharam, Counsel for the petitioner and of CPP for
respondent and upon hearing them, this court delivered the following:
ORDER
1. The petitioner was granted bail by the V Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore,
Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.10806/2020 in C.C.No.2605/2020 on 16.9.2020 for the offences
u/s. 392 of IPC on execution of a bond for a sum of Rs.5000/ along with two sureties, each
for a like sum and one of the surety must be a blood relative of the petitioner.
2. This application has been filed to modify the condition of furnishing one blood
surety.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the CPP were heard through Video
Conference.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s mother is no more and
his father’s whereabouts are not known. He had no brother or sister. Hence, prays for
modifying the condition to furnish common surety instead of blood surety.
5. On the other hand, learned CPP submits that the petitioner is a native of Ariyalur
District. According to learned CPP, the petitioner is having one pending 302 case in
S.C.No.58/2019 on the file of XV Additional Sessions Court, Chennai and trial has
commenced and witnesses were examined and posted to 6.1.2021 for summons to LWs8 to
12. Under such circumstances, this court is not inclined to modify the condition and hence
the petition is dismissed.
Sd./ R. Selvakumar
nmk
Present: Thiru.R.Selvakumar, B.A., M.L.,
Tuesday, the 22nd day of December, 2020.
Crl.M.P.No.13739/2020
in
R1, Mambalam P.S.Crime No. 605/2020
Nagaraj .. Petitioner/Accused.
Vs.
State Rep. by
R1, Mambalam Police Station,
This petition is coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of CPP for
respondent and no representation by the counsel for the petitioner namely, M/s.D.Magesh,
T.Ganesan and S.Padmanabhan and upon hearing the CPP, this Court delivered the
following
ORDER
1. The petitioner, who was arrested on 9.12.2020 for the offences punishable under
Section 341, 397 IPC in Crime No. 605/2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks
bail. 2. The learned CPP was heard through Video Conference.
3. As per the petition averments, the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely
implicated in this case. The petitioner is in custody for two weeks and prays for bail.
4. On the other hand, the learned CPP seriously objects granting bail stating that
the petitioner is having nine previous cases. He waylaid the defacto complainant and tried
to snatch his mobile phone, when the same was resisted by him, the petitioner snatched his
bag, which containing Rs.400/, driving licence and SBI debit card.
5. It is a case of 397 IPC. The petitioner is having nine previous cases according
to CPP. He was arrested on 9.12.2020. Considering the nature of case, duration of
custody and bad antecedents, this court is not inclined to grant bail at present.
6. Petition is dismissed.
Sd/ R.Selvakumar
ss Principal Sessions Judge
Crl.M.P.No.13680/2020
in
B
3, Fort P.S.Crime No. 349/2020
Palanisamy .. Petitioner/Accused.
Vs.
State Rep. by
B3, Fort Police Station,
M/s. G.Ilamurugu, P.Chinnadurai and P.Manikandan, Counsel for the petitioner and of CPP
for the respondent and upon hearing them, this Court delivered the following
ORDER
Section 420 IPC in Crime No. 349/2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a graduate in
M.Sc. and M.Tech in BioTechnology. He is unemployed. He only received Rs.2,40,000/
on various dates through the defacto complainant as hand loan from various persons at the
instance of the defacto complainant, for which he received 10% commission on the loan
amount from the petitioner. The petitioner repaid Rs.1,00,000/ to the defacto
complainant which had been swallowed by him and in turn he lodged the false complaint.
The petitioner is ready to pay the balance Rs.1,40,000/ He is in custody from 1.12.2020
and prays for bail.
4. On the other hand, the learned CPP strongly opposed the petition stating that the
petitioner, on the guise of getting employment in Government Departments and College
seat etc., received various amounts from different persons through the defacto complainant
and cheated them. The total amount cheated is more than Rs.10 lakhs and the amounts
were transferred through bank transaction.
5. There are records to show that the transfer of funds were made through bank
account. The petitioner was arrested only on 1.12.2020 and investigation is going on.
Considering the amount cheated and duration of custody, this court is not inclined to grant
bail.
Sd/ R.Selvakumar
Crl.M.P.No. 13630/2020
in
S.C.No.391/2019
(on the file of VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai)
in
K1, Sembium P.S. Crime No.80/2019
Sekar .. Petitioner/Accused.
Vs.
State Rep. by
K1, Sembium Police Station,
M/s.D.Manoj Kumar, R.Ram Kumar, S.Pavithra and B.Priyanka, Counsel for the petitioner
and of CPP for the respondent and upon hearing them, this Court delivered the following
ORDER
1. The petitioner, who was arrested on 11.12.2020 on execution of NBW for the
offence punishable under Section 302 IPC in S.C.No.391/2019 in Crime No.80/2019 on
the file of learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, seeks bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not able to
appear before the Sessions Court due to illness. So, N.B.W. was issued against him on
5.12.2020 and the petitioner was arrested on 11.12.2020. The absence is neither willful
nor wanton. Hereinafter, he will regularly appear before the court and prays for bail.
4. On the other hand, the learned CPP submits that the N.B.W. was issued on
5.12.2020 and the petitioner was arrested on 11.12.2020.
5. The warrant was issued when the court was not fully resumed to work.
Considering the duration of custody, this court is inclined to grant bail.
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 VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai and on
(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.
orders.
(c) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during
229A IPC.
Sd/ R.Selvakumar
Copy to :
1. The VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.
2. The Superintendent, SubJail, Ponneri.
ss
Crl.M.P.No.13630/2020
Crl.M.P.No.13744/2020
in
P6, Kodungaiyur P.S.Crime No. 1294/2020
1.Vicky @ Vignesh
2.Devaraj @ Kathikuthu Devaraj .. Petitioners/Accused.
Vs.
State Rep. by
P6, Kodungaiyur Police Station,
M/s.R.Muthukumar, R.Lingakumar, D.Jaisankar and S.Manikandan, Counsel for the
petitioners and of CPP for the respondent and upon hearing them, this Court delivered the
following
ORDER
1. The petitioners, who were arrested on 31.10.2020 for the offence punishable
under Section 457 and 380 IPC in Crime No.1294/2020 on the file of the respondent
police, seek bail.
2. The counsel for the petitioners and the CPP were heard through Video Conference.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the the petitioners are innocent.
They are no way connected with the alleged offence. The respondent police falsely
implicated the petitioners in the pending cases, simultaneously. The petitioners are in
custody from 31.10.2020 and prays for granting bail.
4. On the other hand, learned CPP submits that these petitioners broke open the
defacto complainant’s shop and attempted to commit theft. She further submits that the
petitioners are habitual offenders and they are having 16 previous cases. Some of the
properties involved in the above cases were recovered from the petitioners. Earlier petition
was dismissed only on 10.12.2020 and no change of circumstances.
5. Earlier petition was dismissed only on 10.12.2020. Considering the duration of
custody, bad antecedents and no change of circumstances, this court is not inclined to
grant bail to the petitioners at present.

Sd/ R.Selvakumar
Crl.M.P.No.13746/2020
in
1.Vicky @ Vignesh
Vs.
State Rep. by
following
ORDER
under Section 457 and 380 IPC in Crime No. 1321/2020 on the file of the respondent
police, seeks bail.
defacto complainant’s Grocery shop and committed theft of cash Rs.8000/ and grocery
items. She further submits that the petitioners are habitual offenders and they are having
16 previous cases. Some of the properties involved in the above cases were recovered
from the petitioners. Earlier petition was dismissed only on 10.12.2020 and no change of
circumstances.

Sd/ R.Selvakumar
Crl.M.P.No.13747/2020
in
1.Vicky @ Vignesh
Vs.
State Rep. by
following
ORDER
under Section 457 and 380 IPC in Crime No. 1320/2020 on the file of the respondent
police, seeks bail.
defacto complainant’s shop and committed theft of cash Rs.16,500/ and also 6 New
Mobiles, 7 mobiles kept for service, Laptop, Bluetooth and mobile phone accessories,
totally worth about Rs.50,000/ She further submits that the petitioners are habitual
offenders and they are having 16 previous cases. Some of the properties involved in the
above cases were recovered from the petitioners. Earlier petition was dismissed only on
10.12.2020 and no change of circumstances.

Sd/ R.Selvakumar
Crl.M.P.No.13749/2020
in
1.Vicky @ Vignesh
Vs.
State Rep. by
following
ORDER
under Section 457 and 380 IPC in Crime No.1272/2020 on the file of the respondent
police, seeks bail.
defacto complainant’s shop and committed theft of cash Rs.90,000/ She further submits
that the petitioners are habitual offenders and they are having 16 previous cases. Some of
the properties involved in the above cases were recovered from the petitioners. Earlier
petition was dismissed only on 10.12.2020 and no change of circumstances.

Sd/ R.Selvakumar
Crl.M.P.No.13745/2020
in
D3, Ice House P.S.Crime No. 29/2020
Vinothkumar .. Petitioner/Accused.
Vs.
State Rep. by
D3 Ice House Police Station,
M/s.R.Muthukumar, R. Lingakumar, J. Sakthivel, S. Manikandan, Counsel for the petitioner
ORDER
1. The petitioner, who was arrested on 14.10.2020 for the offences punishable
under Section 147, 148, 341, 363, 307, 506(ii) IPC @ 147, 148, 341, 363, 302, 506(ii)
IPC & 201 IPC r/w 149 IPC in Crime No.29/2020 on the file of the respondent police,
seeks bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petitioner’s name not
mentioned in the FIR. He was not at all present at the scene of occurrence. He has been
falsely implicated in this case and he is no way connected with the alleged offence. The
petitioner is in custody from 14.10.2020 and prays for granting bail.
4. On the other hand, learned CPP submits that on 19.1.2020, the petitioner along
with others kidnapped the defacto complainant’s son and made murderous assault on him.
Initially, the case was registered u/s.307 IPC, later, since the victim was died, the section
was altered into Sec.302 IPC. She further submits that this petitioner is a named accused
and he has been arrayed as A2 in this case. The occurrence took place on 19.1.2020 and
the petitioner was arrested on 14.10.2020.
5. The petitioner was absconding for long time and he was arrested only after
10 months of the occurrence. He is named accused. Considering the gravity of offence
and long abscondence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at present.
6. Hence, this petition was dismissed.
Sd/ R.Selvakumar
ss Principal Sessions Judge.
Crl.M.P.No.13748/2020
in
K7, ICF P.S.Crime No. 550/2020
Nepolian .. Petitioner/Accused.
Vs.
State Rep. by
K7, ICF Police Station,
petitioner and of CPP for the respondent and upon hearing them, this Court delivered the
following
ORDER
Section 392 IPC in Crime No. 550/2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was arrested in
connection with another crime number, thereafter, he was arrested in this case on P.T.
warrant on 4.12.2020. He was granted bail in the NDPS case. He is in custody for the
past 19 days and prays for bail.
4. On the other hand, the learned CPP submits that the petitioner along with
another accused snatched cash Rs.4,500/ and a cellphone from the defacto complainant.
5. The petitioner was granted bail in other cases. He is in custody for 19 days.

Considering the nature of case and duration of custody, this court is inclined to grant bail.
likesum to the satisfaction of the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai and on further
condition that
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 appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m.
until further orders.
229A IPC.

Sd/ R.Selvakumar
Copy to :
1. The V Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai.
ss
Crl.M.P.No.13748/2020
Crl.M.P.No.13750/2020
in
S.C.No.172/2015
(on the file of IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai)
in
D3, ICE House P.S.Crime No. 1058/2014
Rizwan @ Rizwan Basha .. Petitioner/Accused.
Vs.
State Rep. by
D3, Ice House Police Station,
M/s.M.Hussaini Basha, I.Gowri Shankar and Shaik Abu Thahir, Counsel for the petitioner
ORDER
1. The petitioner, who was arrested on 30.11.2020 on execution of NBW for the
offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 341, 302 r/w 149, 120B and 109 IPC in
S.C.No.172/2015 in Crime No.1058/2014 on the file of learned IV Additional Sessions
Judge, Chennai, seeks bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to viral fever, the petitioner
could not attend the court. Thereafter, he was not able to surrender due to covid19. He
was arrested on 30.11.2020 and he is in custody for the past 24 days. Hereinafter, he will
regularly appear before the court and prays for bail.
4. On the other hand, the learned CPP submits that N.B.W. was issued on 9.8.2019
and the petitioner was arrested on 30.11.2020. He was absconding for more than a year
and objects granting bail.
5. However, the petitioner is in custody for the past 24 days. Considering the
duration of custody and the reasons stated by the petitioner, this court is inclined to grant
bail.
likesum to the satisfaction of the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai and on
surety bond and the Magistrate/trial court may obtain a copy of their Aadhar Card or Bank
Pass Book to ensure their identity.
orders.
229A IPC.

Sd/ R.Selvakumar
Copy to :
1. The IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.
ss
Crl.M.P.No.13750/2020
Crl.M.P.No.13701/2020
in
G1, Vepery P.S. Crime No. 1504/2020
Raj Bharath .. Petitioner/Accused.
Vs.
State Rep. by
G1, Vepery Police Station,

M/s.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj, M.Soundar Vijay Arul Ram and T.Prem Kumar, Counsel for the
petitioner and of CPP for the respondent and upon hearing them, this Court delivered the
following
ORDER
alleged offences u/s.294(b), 406, 420 and 506(i) IPC in Crime No.1504/2020 on the file
of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned CPP were heard through
Video Conference.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s father borrowed
hand loan from the defacto complainant for construction of house during 2017 and was
paying the interest. On 11.2.2020, the defacto complainant demanded the principal and
interest and there was a quarrel. The petitioner’s father was granted bail by this court. The
petitioner apprehends arrest and prays for anticipatory bail.
4. On the other hand, the learned CPP submits that the petitioner along with his
father received Rs.15,50,000/ from the defacto complainant on several occasions under the
pretext of getting Government job. Amount was transferred to this petitioner’s account.
But they failed to get the job and cheated the defacto complainant. When the defacto
complainant went to the petitioner’s house for demanding the amount given by her, the
accused threatened her and gave life threat to her. Earlier petition for anticipatory bail was
dismissed on 2.12.2020 and no change of circumstances.
5. Granting bail to the arrested accused is not a ground for granting anticipatory bail.
The petitioner is the prime accused in this case. His father / coaccused was granted bail
considering his medical condition and age. So, this petitioner cannot be treated on par with
him. Hence, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail.

Sd/ R.Selvakumar
Crl.M.P.No. 13702/2020
in
P6, Kodungaiyur P.S. Crime No. 1306/2020
Akash .. Petitioner/Accused.
Vs.
State Rep. by

M/s. S.Lakshmikanthan, V.Ramachandran and C.Jagan, Counsel for the petitioner and of
CPP for the respondent and upon hearing them, this Court delivered the following
ORDER
alleged offences u/s.294(b), 323, 307 and 506(ii) IPC in Crime No. 1306/2020 on the file
of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned CPP were heard through
Video Conference.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petitioner is innocent of the
offence and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. False case has
been foisted on him with an ulterior motive. Arrested accused / A1 was released on bail.
The petitioner apprehends arrest and prays for granting anticipatory bail.
4. On the other hand, the learned CPP seriously opposed the petition stating that due
to previous enmity over love affair, the petitioner along with other accused assaulted the
defacto complainant with beer bottle and knife and caused injuries to him on his head and
hand.
5. It is a case of 307 IPC. Considering the nature of offence and injuries caused to
the defacto complainant, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail.

Sd/ R.Selvakumar
Crl.M.P.No. 13706/2020
in
Crl.M.P.No. 12788/2020
in
Crime No. 1341/2020
Saravanan @ Kizhangu Saravanan ... Petitioner/Accused.
vs.
State by
E1, Mylapore Police Station,
Chennai. ... Respondent/Complainant.
This petition is coming on this day before me for hearing, in the presence of CPP
for respondent and no representation by the counsel for the petitioner, M/s.J.William
Shakesphere, V.Ravi, P.Iyyappan and A.Gurumoorthy, and upon hearing the CPP, this
Court delivered the following,
O R D E R
1. Petitioner seeks relaxation of the condition imposed by this court in

Crl.M.P.No.12788/2020 dated 10.12.2020.
2. The learned CPP was heard through Video Conference.
3. The petitioner was granted bail by this court in Crl.M.P.No.12788/2020 dated
10.12.2020 with various conditions and one of the condition is that the petitioner shall
appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders.
4. Learned CPP submits that the petitioner has complied the condition only for 7
days from 14.12.2020 to 21.12.2020 and hence, she objects the petition.
5. The petitioner has complied the condition only for 7 days and filed the petition for
relaxation. Considering the nature of case and short duration of compliance, this court is
not inclined to relax the condition.
Sd/ R.Selvakumar
Crl.M.P.No. 13707/2020
in
Crl.M.P.No. 9323/2020
in
Crime No. 1102/2020
Saravanan @ Kizhangu Saravanan ... Petitioner/Accused.
vs.
State by
E1, Mylapore Police Station,
This petition is coming on this day before me for hearing, in the presence of CPP
for respondent and no representation by the counsel for the petitioner, M/s.J.William
Shakesphere, V.Ravi, P.Iyyappan and A.Gurumoorthy, and upon hearing the CPP, this
Court delivered the following,
O R D E R
1. Petitioner seeks relaxation of the condition imposed by this court in

Crl.M.P.No.9323/2020 dated 28.9.2020.
2. The learned CPP was heard through Video Conference.
3. The petitioner was granted bail by this court in Crl.M.P.No.9323/2020 dated

28.9.2020 with various conditions and one of the condition is that the petitioner shall appear
before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders.
4. Learned CPP submits that the petitioner has complied the condition only for 7
days from 14.12.2020 to 21.12.2020 and hence, she objects the petition.
5. The petitioner has complied the condition only for 7 days and filed the petition for
relaxation. Considering the nature of case and short duration of compliance, this court is
not inclined to relax the condition.
Sd/ R.Selvakumar
Crl.M.P.No. 13709/2020
in
Crl.M.P.No. 11606/2020
in
Crime No. 4454/2020
1.Viji @ Vijaykumar
2. Baskar ... Petitioners/Accused.
vs.
State by
H5, New Washermenpet Police Station,
M/s.A.Manikandan and C.Umamaheswaran, Counsel for the petitioner and the CPP for
the respondent , this Court delivered the following,
O R D E R
1. Petitioners seek relaxation of the condition imposed by this court in
Crl.M.P.No.11606/2020 dated 21.11.2020.
2. The counsel for the petitioners and CPP were heard through Video Conference.
3. The petitioners were granted bail by this court in Crl.M.P.No.11606/2020 dated
21.11.2020 with various conditions and one of the conditions is that the petitioners shall
appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders.
4. Learned CPP submits that the petitioners have complied the condition from
28.11.2020 to 21.12.2020.
5. The petitioners have complied the condition for 24 days. Considering the nature
of case and number of days complied, this court is inclined to relax the condition.
6. (i) Petition is allowed.
(ii) Condition is relaxed in toto.
Sd/ R.Selvakumar
Crl.M.P.No. 13710/2020
in
Crl.M.P.No.13301/2020
in
CCB1 Crime No.284/2020
Akila Vijayakumar .. Petitioner/Accused.
Vs.
State Rep. by
Team27, Forgery Prevention Wing,
CCB1, Chennai. ..Respondent/Complainant.
Mrs.Vidya Chetan, Counsel for the petitioner and of CPP for the respondent and upon
hearing them, this Court delivered the following
ORDER
1. The petitioner seeks modification of bail condition imposed by this court in
Crl.M.P.No.13301/2020 dated 16.12.2020.
2. The counsel for the petitioner and the CPP were heard through Video
Conference.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petitioner was granted bail
by this court in Crl.M.P.No.13301/2020, dated 16.12.2020 with condition to surrender her
passport before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai. The petitioner’s passport is
under renewal before the Regional Passport Office, Chennai and pending for police
verification. She is ready to surrender the passport as soon as the same is renewed.
Hence, prays to modify the condition.
4. Learned CPP has not raised any serious objection.
5. The petitioner was directed to deposit the original passport into the court as a
condition for bail granted by this court on 16.12.2020 in Crl.M.P.No.13301/2020. The
petitioner was arrested on 7.12.2020. Even before on 4.12.2020 itself, it appears that the
passport was surrendered for renewal and it is pending for renewal. Under such
circumstances, she is not in a position to deposit the passport into the court. Considering
the same, this court is inclined to modify the condition imposed by this court to deposit the
original passport into the court. However, the petitioner is directed to deposit the original
passport into the court immediately after receiving the same from the Passport Office.
Sd/ R.Selvakumar
Copy to:
1. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai.
ss
Crl.M.P.No.13710/2020
Crl.M.P.No. 13711/2020
in
Crl.M.P.No. 10920/2020
in
Crime No. 4120/2020
1. S.Gowri
2. G.Indrani ... Petitioners/Accused.
vs.
State by
N1 Royapuram Police Station,
M/s.M.Baskaran and S.Jayaseelan, Counsel for the petitioners and the CPP for the
respondent, this Court delivered the following,
O R D E R
Crl.M.P.No.10920/2020 dated 10.11.2020.
3. The petitioners were granted anticipatory bail by this court in

Crl.M.P.No.10920/2020 dated 10.11.2020 with various conditions and one of the conditions
is that the petitioners shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. until
further orders.
19.11.2020 to 21.12.2020.
5. The petitioners have complied the condition for a month. Considering the nature
Sd/ R.Selvakumar
Crl.M.P.No. 13712/2020
in
Crl.M.P.No. 10926/2020
in
Crime No. 4120/2020
1.Pooshnam @ Bhusham
2.C.Muthu ... Petitioners/Accused.
vs.
State by
N1 Royapuram Police Station,
M/s.M.Baskaran and S.Jayaseelan, Counsel for the petitioners and the CPP for the
respondent , this Court delivered the following,
O R D E R
Crl.M.P.No.10926/2020 dated 10.11.2020.
3. The petitioners were granted anticipatory bail by this court in

Crl.M.P.No.10926/2020 dated 10.11.2020 with various conditions and one of the conditions
is that the petitioners shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. until
further orders.
20.11.2020 to 21.12.2020.
5. The petitioners have complied the condition for a month. Considering the nature
Sd/ R.Selvakumar
Crl.M.P.No.13754/2020
in
C.A.No.136/2020
in
C.C.No.4111/2017
(on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, FTCI, Egmore, Chennai)
Joseph ....Petitioner/Appellant/Accused
Vs.
M.Saravanan …. Respondent/Respondent/Complainant
M/s. T.Vel Marriappan and J.Jaihar David, Counsel for the Petitioner / Appellant / Accused
and upon hearing petitioner’s side argument, this Court delivered the following,
ORDER
1. Heard.
2. The petitioner seeks suspension of sentence pending disposal of the appeal.
3. The Petitioner / Appellant herein is the accused /A2 in C.C.No.4111/2017 on the
file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, FTCI, Egmore, Chennai. On 20.10.2020,
judgment was pronounced in the above case and the petitioner was found guilty u/s.138 of
N.I. Act and he was sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment and also directed
to pay Rs.4,00,000/ as compensation to the complainant within sixty days, in default, to
undergo six weeks S.I.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has fair chance
of success in the appeal. Hence, prays to suspend the sentence.
5. This court has also perused the memorandum of appeal and the submission made
by the petitioner’s counsel. The sentence has been suspended by the trial court for 30 days.
6. As per Sec.148 of N.I. Act (Amendment Act), 2018, the Appellate Court may
order the Appellant to deposit such sum which shall be a minimum of Twenty percent of the
fine or Compensation awarded by the Trial Court. In the above provision, it is clearly stated
that the amount shall be deposited within 60 days from the date of the Order. As already
stated supra, the petitioner / appellant / accused was ordered to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of six months and in these circumstances, it may not be right to
hold that the petitioner has to serve the sentence during the pendency of the appeal.
7. Considering the above facts and the value of the cheque amount, this Court is
inclined to suspend the sentence on condition to deposit 20% of the cheque amount.
8. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by the lower
Court alone is hereby suspended till the disposal of the appeal and the petitioner is ordered
to be enlarged on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.10,000/ with two sureties each for a
likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, FTCI, Chennai. Further
the petitioner shall deposit 20% of the cheque amount to the credit of C.C. number on the
file of the Trial Court within sixty days from the date of this Order.
9. The appeal has been made over to XXI Additional Sessions Court, Chennai.
10. The appeal stands posted to 22.1.2021.
Delivered by me today in the open court.
Sd/ R.Selvakumar
Principal Sessions Judge.
Copy to
The Metropolitan Magistrate, FTCI, Egmore, Chennai.

E Bail 22122020

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

E Bail 22122020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN

3. According to learned CPP, already bail was granted to the petitioner in

5. The petitioner was granted bail in other cases. He is in custody for 19 days.

1. Petitioner seeks relaxation of the condition imposed by this court in

1. Petitioner seeks relaxation of the condition imposed by this court in

3. The petitioner was granted bail by this court in Crl.M.P.No.9323/2020 dated

3. The petitioners were granted anticipatory bail by this court in

3. The petitioners were granted anticipatory bail by this court in

You might also like