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

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DHARSHAN @ PAIPAR – Appellant
Versus
THE EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE CUM – Respondent
CRL RC 1299/2019



Advocates:
['M/S K S KAVIARASU', '', 'D GOPIKRISHNAN', 'PUBLIC PROSECUTOR']

CRL.R.C.No.1299 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED :19.08.2021

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

CRL.R.C.No.1299 of 2019

&

CRL.M.P.No.17586 of 2019

Dharshan @ Paipar

S/o, Shivashankar

... Petitioner

Versus

1. The Executive Magistrate cum

Deputy Commissioner of Police,

Anna Nagar District.

2. The State represented by its

The Inspector of Police,(Law & Order),

V1, Villivakkam Police Station,

Chennai – 600 049. ... Respondents

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 & 401 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside and revise the order dated

08.04.2019 passed by the first respondent in C.No.07 /Sec.Pro

/DC.AN/2019 in V1 Villivakkam P.S.C.No.01/Inspr.V1PS/Sec.Pro./2019

u/s.107 Cr.P.C.

Page No.1 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

CRL.R.C.No.1299 of 2019

For Petitioner

: Mr.Kaveri Selvam

for Mr.K.S.Kaviarasu

For Respondents : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar

for Public Prosecutor

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed to set aside and

revise the order dated 08.04.2019 passed by the firstrespondent in

C.No.07/Sec.Pro/DC.AN/2019 in V1 Villivakkam P.S.C.No.01 /Inspr.

V1PS / Sec.Pro./2019 u/s.107 Cr.P.C.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had involved in

cases in Crime No.1459 of 2017 for the offence punishable under

sections 341, 323, 302 IPC, Crime No.1461 of 2017 for the offence

punishable under sections 341, 336, 427, 392, 397 r/w 307 IPC and in

Crime No.1085 of 2018 for the offence punishable under sections 341,

294(b), 506(ii) 392 IPC r/w 397 IPC and subsequently he released on

bail. While the cases were pending, the petitioner was asked to execute a

bond under section 107 Cr.P.C to maintain peace. Accordingly he

Page No.2 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

CRL.R.C.No.1299 of 2019

executed the bond. During the pendency of the bond, the petitioner again

involved in another offence and thereby, a case in Crime No.151 of 2019

was registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under

sections 341, 294(b), 323, 336, 392, 397, 506(ii) IPC r/w.3 of TNPPDL

Act. The firstrespondent initiated proceedings under section 122(1)(b)

Cr.P.C based on the report filed by the second respondent and the

petitioner was produced before the firstrespondent and after enquiry, the

first respondent passed an order by cancelling the bond and sentenced

him to undergo the remaining bond period. Challenging the said order of

cancellation of bail bond, the present revision has been filed by the

petitioner.

3. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing

for the respondents would submit that the petitioner had involved in

various cases in Crime No.1459 of 2017, Crime No.1085 of 2018 and

Crime No.1085 of 2018 and he was granted bail and subsequently he

executed a bond under Section 107 Cr.P.C to maintain good behavior.

However, again the petitioner involved in another case in Crime No.151

Page No.3 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

CRL.R.C.No.1299 of 2019

of 2019 for the offence punishable under sections 341, 294(b), 323, 336,

392, 397, 506(ii) IPC r/w.3 of TNPPDL Act and he was arrested and

remanded to judicial custody 05.04.2019. Since the petitioner breached

the condition imposed in the bail order as well as in the bond executed

under Section 107 Cr.P.C, the second respondent filed a report before the

first respondent and after giving opportunity, the first respondent

cancelled the bond executed by the petitioner under section 107 Cr.P.C

and also sentenced the petitioner to undergo the remaining bond period.

The first respondent was satisfied that during the bond period, the

petitioner involved in another case and therefore prima facie found that

the petitioner breached the bond and therefore, the proceedings was

initiated under

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