SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 15500

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J
PORKODI – Appellant
Versus
Home Prohibition and Excise Department – Respondent



A bail order remains valid if the conditions are met and allegations of wrongdoing are unsubstantiated.

Headnote:

Bail - Criminal Procedure - IPC Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 307, 506(ii) - The court addressed issues of bail compliance and allegations of evidence tampering, ultimately concluding that conditions were met, dismissing the petition for cancellation of bail.

Fact of the Case:

Respondents 2 and 3 were granted bail for serious IPC offences but were later accused of tampering with witnesses and evidence, leading to a petition for bail cancellation. The case hinged on the timing of the victim's hospital discharge.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondents complied with bail conditions and that there was no solid proof provided by the petitioner to refute the respondents' claims about the victim's discharge from the hospital.

Issues: Whether the bail granted to the respondents should be canceled due to alleged witness tampering and if the victim's hospital discharge was misrepresented during the bail grant.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in the absence of conclusive evidence to undermine the bail conditions or the respondents' claims, the petition for cancellation of bail should not succeed.

Final Decision: The Criminal Original Petition seeking bail cancellation is dismissed.

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respondents 2 and 3 in Crl.MP.No.65 of 2024 dated

08.05.2024 by the Sessions Court, Ranipet District.

2. The respondents 2 and 3 were arrested at the hands of the respondent police for the offence under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 307 and 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.139 of 2024. Subsequently, they have filed a petition, in Crl.M.P.No.65 of 2024 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ranipet, seeking bail.

3. In Crl.M.P.No.65 of 2024, the learned Judge has granted anticipatory bail to the respondents 2 and 3 on 08.05.2024 on condition that they shall appear and sign before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., on all working days until further orders from the next day of execution of bond before the Magistrate Court and further directed to appear before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation, on summon. Thereafter he can file a modification petition after 15 days. While so, the accused and his henchmen came to the petitioner's residence with dire consequences to withdraw the case and hence the petitioner made a complaint on 13.05.2024. The respondents 2 and 3 had violated the condition imposed in the bail order by tampering the evidence or witnesses during investigation. Hence, the defacto complainant has filed the present petition seeking cancellation of bail.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the date of granting of bail i.e.., on 08.05.2024 the victim was in the hospital but by suppressing the facts, the respondents have obtained the bail order.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 has submitted that the victim was discharged from the hospital on 07.05.2024 and on 08.05.2024, bail was granted to the accused. The medical record produced by the accused shows that there is no hospital seal and entries made by the hospital authorities.

6. Upon perusing the documents placed on record and hearing the submission made on either side, it is seen that the discharge summary issued by the Doctor shows that the victim was discharged from the hospital on 07.05.2024. But the petitioner has submitted that the victim was discharged from the hospital on 08.05.2024 but no proof for the same is filed on the side of the petitioner. However, the two petitioners have complied the conditions imposed by the trial court.

T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.

gv

7. In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 01.08.2024 Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order gv To

1. The Inspector of Police, Arakkonam Taluk, Ranipet District.

(Cr.No.139 of 2024)

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

Crl.O.P.No.13465 of 2024

01.08.2024

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top