Amarjith Bail Order PDF

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS AT CHENNAI
Present: Thiru M.N. Senthil Kumar, M.L.,

I Additional Sessions Judge
FAC of Principal Sessions Court
Thursday, the 13th day of August , 2020
Crl.M.P.No. 8165/2020
in
F-1 Chintadripet P.S. Crime No. 481/2019
1. Anandharaj
2. Iman @ Aravind
3. Vijay @ Jerald
4. Manoharan .. Petitioners/Accused.
Vs.
State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
F-1 Chintadripet Police Station,
Chennai. ..Respondent/Complainant.
This petition is coming on this day before me for hearing, upon hearing
M/s. M. Baskar, Counsel for the petitioners and of CPP for respondent, this Court delivered
the following :
ORDER
1. The 1st and 3rd petitioners, who were arrested on 7.10.2019, 2nd petitioner was
arrested on 30.9.2019 and 4th petitioner was arrested on 3.10.2019 for the offence
punishable under Section 147, 148, 341, 307, 506(ii) IPC r/w 120(B) @ 147, 148, 341,
302, 506(ii) IPC r/w 120(B) IPC in Crime No. 481/2019 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 petitioners submits that the petitioners are in custody for
nearly one year. They were detained under Act 14/1982. Now, the detention order as against
the petitioners was set aside by the Hon’ble High Court in HCP Nos. 99/2020 dt.27.7.2020,
106/2020 dt. 31.7.2020, 101/2020 dated 29.7.2020 and 110/2020 dated 3.8.2020. Hence,
prays for granting bail.
4. Learned CPP submits that the case is committed to the Court of Sessions and it has
been numbered as SC 87/2020 which is pending before the XVII Additional Sessions Court,
Chennai at summons stage. Apart from that she does not raise any serious objection.
According to her the detention orders as against the petitioners was set aside by the Hon’ble
High Court.
5. Considering the fact that the detention order as against the petitioners have been
set aside by the Hon’ble High Court and also considering the duration of custody of the
petitioners , this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners subject to condition.
6. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their executing a
own bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only)each before the
Superintendent of the concerned prison, in which the petitioners have been confined, on
their release
(a) the petitioners shall execute two sureties for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten
thousand only) each, before the concerned Magistrate/Trial Court within one week of
regular functioning of the Courts
(b) 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;
(c) the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness during trial.
(d) the petitioner shall not abscond during 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 petitiones 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 petitioners thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section
229-A IPC.
Delivered by me today.
Sd./-M.N.SENTHIL KUMAR
Copy to
The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
vv
Crl.M.P.No. 8165/2020

Crl.M.P.No. 8181/2020
in
H-6 R.K. Nagar P.S. Crime No. 3374/2020
1. Basheerkhan
2. Inji @ Ranjith .. Petitioners/Accused.
Vs.
State Rep. by
H-6 R.K. Nagar Police Station,
M/s. V. Karthick, Counsel for the petitioners and of CPP for respondent, this Court delivered
the following :
ORDER
1. The petitioners, who were arrested on 5.8.2020 for the offence punishable under
Section 341, 294(b), 323, 392, 397 and 506(ii) IPC in Crime No. 3374/2020 on the file of
the respondent police, seeks bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in custody for
the past 9 days. False case has been foisted on them only for statistical purpose. They have
not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and prays for granting bail.
4. On the other hand, learned CPP submits that these petitioners along with other
accused waylaid the defacto complainant and robbed Rs.500/- from him at knife point and
also assaulted him with hands. She further submits that the 1 st petitioner is having 6
previous cases. A1 is still absconding and the arrest of the petitioners is very recent.
Therefore, she objects the grant of bail.
5. Considering the nature of offence, short duration of custody and co-accused is yet
to be arrested, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners at present.
6.Hence, this petition is dismissed.
vv

Crl.M.P.No. 8183/2020
in
N-2 Kasimedu P.S. Crime No. 2197/2020
Feroz Ahamed .. Petitioner/Accused.

Vs.
State Rep. by
N-2 Kasimedu Police Station,
M/s. G. Arun Gandhi, G. Varun Gandhi, Counsel for the petitioner and of CPP for
respondent, this Court delivered the following :
ORDER
1. The petitioner, who was arrested on 2.8.2020 for the offence punishable under
Section 147, 148, 294(b), 324 and 307 IPC in Crime No. 2197/2020 on the file of the
respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The petitioner’s counsel and the CPP were heard through Video Conference.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. He has
not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. False case has been foisted on
him with an ulterior motive. He is in custody for the past 12 days and prays for granting
bail.
4. On the other hand, learned CPP submits that due to previous enmity between the
sister of Rajasekar with A1’s sister, this petitioner along with other accused abused her in
filthy language and attacked the defacto complainant, his friend Rajasekar and his brother-
in-law with knife and caused cut injuries over left forehead, ring finger, neck, back side and
shoulder and they were admitted in hospital for treatment. Hence, she objects the grant of
bail.
6. Three persons were sustained injury. Arrest of the petitioner is very recent one.
Considering the nature of injury sustained by the victims and short duration of custody and
that investigation is at budding stage, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner
at present.
7. Hence, this petition is dismissed.
vv
Crl.M.P.No. 8184/2020
in
H-6 R.K. Nagar P.S. Crime No. 127/2019
Sankar @ Periya Appunu .. Petitioner/Accused.

Vs.
State Rep. by
H-6 R.K. Nagar Police Station,
M/s. M. Illiyas, A. Venkateswara Babu, Counsel for the petitioner and of CPP for
ORDER
Section 294(b), 341, 323, 307, 392, 336, 427 and 506(ii) IPC in Crime No. 127/2019 on
the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was detained under
Act 14/1982 and subsequently it was set aside by the Hon’ble High Court in HCP No.
417/2020 dated 17.6.2020 and at that time this petitioner was in prison. The respondent
police also arrested this petitioner in Crime No. 123 and 124/2019 and failed to arrest the
petitioner under PT warrant in this case. When he was released on bail in other cases, the
respondent police arrested the petitioner in this case. The petitioner is in custody from
4.8.2020 and prays for granting bail.
4. On the other hand, learned CPP submits that this petitioner/A4 along with three
other accused robbed Rs.1000/- from the defacto complainant at knife point. She further
submits that this petitioner is having 4 previous cases.
5. According to learned counsel for the petitioner this petitioner was arrested on
4.8.2020 for the occurrence took place on 2.2.2019. This petitioner was already arrested in
other cases and subsequently, he was detained under Act 14/1982. He was in prison for more
than one year. In the month of June 2020 his detention order was set aside by the Hon’ble
High Court. Considering the above submissions, 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
own bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) before the Superintendent
of the concerned prison, in which the petitioner has been confined, on his release
(a) the petitioner shall execute two sureties for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten
(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.
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
(f) If the petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section
229-A IPC.
Copy to
vv
Crl.M.P.No. 8184/2020

Crl.M.P.No. 8185/2020
in
S.C.No. 429/2013
(on the file of VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai)
in
P-2 Otteri P.S. Crime No. 802/2009
Appunu @ Jayakumar .. Petitioner/Accused.

Vs.
State Rep. by
P-2 Otteri Police Station,
M/s. S.K. Masthan, T. Ramesh Kumar, Counsel for the petitioner and of CPP for
ORDER
1. The petitioner, who was arrested on 4.8.2020 on execution of NBW for the
offence punishable under Section 341, 393, 394, 397, 506(ii) r/w 34 IPC in Crime No.
802/2009 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
3. According to the petitioner’s counsel, this petitioner is in custody from 4.8.2020.
He could not appear before the trial court since he wrongly noted the hearing date. He was
regularly appeared before the trial court prior to issuance of NBW. Hereafter, he will be
regular in attending the court. Hence, he prays for granting bail.
4. Learned CPP submits that NBW was issued against the petitioner in the month of
November 2019 and it was executed on 4.8.2020. The petitioner was absent for 9 months.
The case is posted for framing of charges. Nearly 9 months this petitioner evaded the court
proceedings. After much effort he has been secured by the police. Therefore, she strongly
objects the grant of bail.
5. Considering the fact that the petitioner was absent for 9 months and no reasonable
explanation offered on his side for his non-appearance and also considering the stage of the
case, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at present.
vv
Crl.M.P.No. 8186/2020
in
K-8 Arumbakkam P.S. Crime No. 904/2020
1. Appurose
2. Karthik @ Kangoo Karthik .. Petitioners/Accused.
Vs.
State Rep. by
K-8 Arumbakkam Police Station,
M/s. M. Jaikumar, P. Kamaraj, Sh. Vazhavan Karthikeyan, P.S. Mercy Gnanammal,
S. Chandrasekar, Counsel for the petitioners and of CPP for respondent, this Court
delivered the following :
ORDER
1. The petitioners, who were arrested on 21.7.2020 for the offence punishable
under Section 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 336, 386, 307 and 506(ii) IPC in Crime No.
904/2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been in
custody for more than 25 days. These petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged
by the prosecution. Injured was discharged from the hospital. Hence, prays for granting
bail.
4. On the other hand, learned CPP submits that these petitioners along with other
accused waylaid he defacto complainant’s son/victim and attacked him using hands and
knife and also plucked his two wheeler and escaped from the spot. Due to the aid attack,
the victim sustained severe head injury. 17 sutures were made to the injured. She further
submits that the 2nd petitioner is having 3 previous cases. Co-accused bail application was
dismissed yesterday. So far no one released on bail. Hence, she opposes the grant of bail.
5. It is a case and counter case. Both the parties sustained injuries. The nature of
injury sustained by the victim is serious in nature. According to CPP, the 2nd petitioner is
having 3 previous cases. Considering the nature of injury inflicted on the victim and the
non-completion of investigation, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners at
present.
vv
Crl.M.P.No. 8187/2020
in
Crime No. 09/2020
V. Gopinath .. Petitioner/Accused.
Vs.
State Rep. by
Bank Fraud Investigation Wing, Team -XII,
Central Crime Branch-I
M/s. D. Lakshmipathy, T. Gopinathan, Counsel for the petitioner and of CPP for
ORDER
Section 120(B), 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and section 66C and 66D of Information
Technology (Amendment) Act 2008 r/w 43 of Information Technology Act 2000 in Crime
No. 09/2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in custody
for more than one month. He is only an employee. Nothing has been seized from this
petitioner. He has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, prays
for granting bail.
4. The case of the prosecution is that this petitioner along with other accused had
started several companies and opened various accounts in the name of the companies and
contacted the innocent victims through phone and under the guise of arranging loan at lower
rate of interest, induced them to deposit money in the companies accounts opened by the
accused and also insisted them to take policy and sent a fake privilege card and cheated
them.
5. According to learned CPP, this petitioner is not an employee he has aided the
other accused knowingly to commit the offence. She further submits that so far 85
complaints have been received for the loss to the tune of Rs.45 lakhs. Based on the
complaints, 34 accused from various 5 groups were arrested and during investigation it
came to light that they had cheated many people to the tune of several crores. Main accused
are detained under Act 14/1982. Hence, she strongly opposes for granting bail.
6. This petitioner along with other accused, under the guise of arranging loan in
prominent banks and private finance companies, collected money through bank accounts,
payment apps, by way of collecting debit card details with OTP Nos. and cheated the
innocent peoples. Investigation is still pending.
7. Considering the nature of offence and quantum of amount involved, this court is
not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at present.
vv
Crl.M.P.No. 8188/2020
in
K-8 Arumbakkam P.S. Crime No. 902/2020
V. Prabhu .. Petitioner/Accused.
Vs.
State Rep. by
K-8 Arumbakkam Police Station,
M/s. A. Muthukumar, D. Pavithra, S.V. Shyam Kumar, A Saravanakumar, Counsel for the
petitioner and of CPP for respondent, this Court delivered the following :
ORDER
Section 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 336, 324, 307 and 506(ii) IPC in Crime No. 902/2020 on
the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent of the
offence. Injured hs been discharged from the hospital. The petitioner is in custody from
17.7.2020 and prays for granting bail.
4. On the other hand, learned CPP seriously objects granting bail stating that this
petitioner along with other accused assaulted the defacto complainant with knife and caused
serious injuries to him. She further submits that this petitioner’s earlier bail application was
dismissed on 30.7.2020 and that there is no change in circumstance and objects the grant of
bail.
5. It is a case and counter case. Clash between two groups. Both the parties sustained
injuries. On perusal of the FIR, it appears both the parties are rowdy elements. The defacto
complainant sustained severe cut injury. Releasing the petitioner will cause further clash
between the parties. No change in circumstance was brought to the notice of this court after
the dismissal of earlier bail application. Considering the nature of injury and non
completion of investigation, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners at
present.
vv
Crl.M.P.No. 8191/2020
in
J-3 Guindy P.S. Crime No.748/2020
Zakir Hussain .. Petitioner/Accused.

Vs.
State Rep. by
J-3, Guindy Police Station,
M/s. S. Vasudevan, Counsel for the petitioner and of CPP for respondent, this Court
ORDER
Section 328 IPC & sec. 24(1) of COTP Act in Crime No. 748/2020 on the file of the
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is innocent of the offence. He
has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. False case has been registered
against him only for statistical purpose. The petitioner is in custody from 6.8.2020 and prays
for granting bail.
4. On the other hand, learned CPP submits that this petitioner along with other
accused were found in possession of huge quantity of banned tobacco products. The tobacco
products along with sale proceeds of Rs.895/- was recovered from the accused. Hence, she
seriously objects granting bail.
5. Huge quantity of tobacco products were recovered from the petitioner . He was
arrested only on 6.8.2020. Considering all the above facts, possession of huge quantity of
banned tobacco products and short duration of custody, this court is not inclined to grant
bail to the petitioner at present.
vv

Crl.M.P.No. 8192/2020
in
Crime No. 4666/2020
R. Vinoth .. Petitioner/Accused.
Vs.
State Rep. by
H-1 Washermenpet Police Station,
M/s. R. Balaji Singh, M. Lakshmi, Parthiban, R. Prabhunath Singh, Counsel for the
petitioner and of CPP for respondent, this Court delivered the following :
ORDER
1. The petitioner, who was arrested on 21.7.2020 for the offence punishable
under Section 399 and 402 IPC in Crime No. 4666/2020 on the file of the respondent
police, seeks bail.
3. According to the petitioner’s counsel, the petitioner is in custody from 21.7.2020.
He has nothing to do with the alleged offence. He has not committed any offence as alleged
by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case . Co-accused were already
granted bail by this court. The petitioner has no bad antecedents. Hence, prays for granting
bail.
accused planned to commit dacoity. She further submits that all the accused were caught
red-handed by the police during patrol.
5. No previous case is reported as against the petitioner. He is in custody for more
than 20 days. Period for taking custodial interrogation is over. Hence, considering the
duration of custody, this court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to condition.
or trial.
229-A IPC.
Copy to
The Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Poonamallee.
vv
Crl.M.P.No. 8192/2020

Crl.M.P.No. 8198/2020
in
Crime No. 4666/2020
Viji @ Vellai Viji .. Petitioner/Accused.

Vs.
State Rep. by
H-1 Washermenpet Police Station,
M/s. G. Magesh Kumar, K.S. Raju, Counsel for the petitioner and of CPP for respondent,
this Court delivered the following :
ORDER
under Section 399 and 402 IPC in Crime No. 4666/2020 on the file of the respondent
police, seeks bail.
by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Co-accused were already
granted bail by this court. Hence, prays for granting bail.
accused planned to commit dacoity. She further submits that all the accused were caught
red-handed by the police during patrol. According to her, this petitioner is having one
previous case.
5. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, though the petitioner is having one
previous case, that was ended in acquittal in SC No. 380/2014. He is in custody for more
than 20 days. Period for taking custodial interrogation is over. Hence, considering the
duration of custody, this court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to condition.
or trial.
229-A IPC.
Copy to
The Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Poonamallee.
vv
Crl.M.P.No. 8198/2020

Crl.M.P.No. 8193/2020
in
Crime No. 1290/2020
Kishore Kumar @ Kanna .. Petitioner/Accused.

Vs.
State Rep. by
D-3 Ice House Police Station,
M/s. C. Jagan, Counsel for the petitioner and of CPP for respondent, this Court delivered the
following :
ORDER
under Section 341, 294(b), 392, 397 and 506(ii) IPC in Crime No. 1290/2020 on the file
of the respondent police, seeks bail.
by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case . The petitioner has no bad
antecedents. Hence, prays for granting bail.
accused robbed Rs.2000/- and a cell phone from the defacto complainant at knife point.
However, according to her, the cell phone was recovered and that the petitioner has no bad
antecedents.
5. No previous case is reported as against the petitioner. He is in custody for more
than 15 days. Period for taking custodial interrogation is over. Considering the above
aspects and the duration of custody, this court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner
subject to condition.
or trial.
229-A IPC.
Copy to
The Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Tirutani.
vv
Crl.M.P.No. 8193/2020

Crl.M.P.No. 8194/2020
in
C.C. No. 6484/2018
(on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai)
in
K-6 T.P.Chathiram P.S. Crime No. 218/2018
Krishnaveni .. Petitioner/Accused.
Vs.
State Rep. by
K-6 T.P. Chathiram Police Station,
M/s. S.N. Arunkumar, Counsel for the petitioner and of CPP for respondent, this Court
ORDER
Section 4(1)(a), 4(1)(k) r/w 4(1-A) of TNP Act @ 4(1)(a), 4(1)(k) of TNP Act in Crime
She was arrested by the police for not complying the condition passed in C.A. No. 547/2011
during granting suspension of sentence. Thereafter she was produced through PT Warrant
and remanded in this C.C.No. 6484/2018. Now the period of sentence in C.A. No. 547/2011
is undergone. This petitioner is in jail for the past 8 months. Hence, prays for granting bail.
4. According to CPP, this petitioner was produced under PT warrant in this case. She
is a habitual offender, history sheeter and having 14 previous cases. In several cases NBW is
pending against her. Therefore, she objects the grant of bail.
5. The petitioner is in custody for the past 8 months. Considering the duration of
custody, 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 her executing a
or trial.
229-A IPC.
Copy to
The Superintendent, Special Prison for Women, Puzhal, Chennai.
vv
Crl.M.P.No. 8194/2020
Thursday, the 13th day of August, 2020
Crl.M.P.No.8212/2020
in
Crl.M.P.No.8106/2020
in
Crime No.501/2020
Abdul Rahman @ Chittu .. Petitioner/Accused.
Vs.
State Rep. by
K.1, Sembium Police Station,
M/s. K. Thenrajan and S. Krishnamoorthy, Counsel for the petitioner and of CPP for
ORDER
1. This application has been filed to amend the name of the petitioner in the bail order
dated 5.8.2020, passed in Crl.M.P.No.8106/2020.
3. The petitioner was granted bail by this court in Crl.M.P.No.8106/2020 on 5.8.2020.
According to the petitioner’s counsel, the name of the petitioner has been wrongly
mentioned in the bail petition as “Abdul Mohammed @ Chittu” instead of “Abdul Rahman
@ Chittu”. Due to which, he is unable to come out from the jail and thus, seeks for
amendment.
3. Learned CPP has not raised any objection.
4. Considering the submission of both sides, this court is inclined to amend the name
of the petitioner as “Abdul Rahman @ Chittu” in the bail order dated 5.8.2020 in
Crl.M.P.No.8106/2020. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
nmk
Crl.M.P.No.8195/2020
in
K-4, Anna Nagar P.S. Crime No.730/2020
Amarjith Petitioner/Accused.
Vs.
State Rep. by
K.4, Anna Nagar Police Station,
M/s. B. Jawahar, Counsel for the petitioner and of CPP for respondent, this Court delivered
the following :
ORDER
Section 7 of TN Prohibition of Smoking and Spitting Act, 2003 and sec. 328 IPC in Crime
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent. He
has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner has no bad antecedent. He is in
custody for the past three weeks and hence, prays for granting bail.
4. On the other hand, learned CPP submits that this petitioner was found in
possession of prohibited tobacco products and from him 1.3 Kg of Maava and cash Rs.450/-
were recovered.
5. No one is reported hospitalized after consuming the tobacco products. According
to CPP, all the properties involved in this case were recovered and the petitioner has no bad
antecedent. The petitioner is in custody for more than 20 days. Considering all the above
facts, this court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to following condition.
6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a own
bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) before the Superintendent of the
concerned prison, in which the petitioner has been confined, on his release
or trial.
229-A IPC.
Copy to:
nmk
Crl.M.P.No.8195/2020
Crl.M.P.No.8197/2020
in
Crime No.451/2020
S. Azhaguraja .. Petitioner/Accused.
Vs.
State Rep. by
D.4, Zam Bazzar Police Station,
M/s. R. Sami, R. Karthik and R. Sathish Kumar, Counsel for the petitioner and of CPP for
ORDER
1. The petitioner, who was arrested on 27.7.2020 for the offences punishable under
Section 294(b), 341, 324, 397 and 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.451/2020 on the file of the
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he
has been falsely implicated in this case. As per the F.I.R., the occurrence was taken place
on 27.7.2020. However, the petitioner was taken by the police on 26.7.2020, for which,
video is available. The respondent police has foisted two cases as against this petitioner
and in another case, petitioner was released on bail. This petitioner is affected with Covid-
19 and his parents seeking treatment in a reputed hospital. The petitioner is in custody
since 27.7.2020. Hence, he prays for granting bail.
4. On the other hand, the learned CPP seriously objects for granting bail stating
that the petitioner assaulted the defacto complainant with knife and robbed Rs.4,000/-
from him at knife point. The occurrence was taken place on 27.7.2020 and the petitioner
was arrested on the same day. According to learned CPP, this petitioner is a habitual
offender having six previous cases and his earlier petition was dismissed only on 3.8.2020
and there is no change of circumstance.
5. Considering the nature of offence, the bad antecedent of the petitioner and the
fact that no change in circumstance was brought to the knowledge of this court after
dismissal of earlier petition, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at
present.
6. Hence, the petition is dismissed.
nmk
Crl.M.P.Nos.8200 and 8202 of 2020
in
Crime No.919/2020
Radha @ Radha Krishnan .. Petitioner/Accused in
Crl.M.P.No.8200/2020.
1. Vadivel
2. Ranjith .. Petitioners/Accused in
Crl.M.P.No.8202/2020.
Vs.
State Rep. by
K.8, Arumbakkam Police Station,
Chennai. ..Respondent/Complainant in
both the petitions.
For the petitioner : M/s. F. Aslam and T. Dhayalamoorthy,

Advocates in Crl.M.P.No.8200/2020
For the petitioners : M/s. B. Karthick, Advocate in Crl.M.P.No.8202/2020
For Respondent : Learned CPP in both the petitions.
Both petitions are coming on this day before me for hearing, upon hearing
Counsel for the petitioners and of CPP for respondent, this Court delivered the following :
COMMON ORDER
1. The petitioners, who were arrested on 1.8.2020 for the offences punishable
under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392, 397 and 506(ii) of IPC in Crime
No.919/2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent. The
petitioners were taken by the police under the guise of enquiry and falsely implicated in
this case. The petitioners are noway connected with the alleged offence. They are in
custody since 1.8.2020. Hence, prays for granting bail.
4. On the other hand, the learned CPP submits that the petitioners along with
others waylaid the defacto complainant and at knife point robbed Rs.50,000/- from him.
The petitioners were arrested and from them Rs.22,000/- and a Swift Car were recovered.
She further submits that Radha @ Radha Krishnan(the petitioner in
Crl.M.P.No.8200/2020) is a habitual offender having 35 previous cases and Vadivel, 1 st
petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.8202/2020 is having 2 previous cases and Ranjith, 2nd petitioner
in Crl.M.P.No.8202/2020 is having one previous case. According to learned CPP, the
petitioners were arrested very recently, investigation is pending and balance amount is yet
to be recovered. She seriously objects for granting bail.
5. Petitioners were arrested only on 1.8.2020. Period for custodial interrogation is

not yet completed. Considering the nature of offence, the bad antecedents of the
petitioners and short duration of custody, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the
petitioners at present.
6. Hence, both the petitions are dismissed.
nmk
Crl.M.P.No.8201/2020
in
Crime No.479/2020
Chandrasekar .. Petitioner/Accused.
Vs.
State Rep. by
K.1, Sembium Police Station,
M/s. S. Devan, K. Manikandan and K. Ganesan, Counsel for the petitioner and of CPP for
ORDER
Section 341, 294(b), 324, 307 and 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.479/2020 on the file of the
3. According to the petitioner’s counsel, the petitioner is innocent. He is noway

connected with the alleged offence. Being a friend of co-accused, this petitioner has been
falsely implicated in this case. This petitioner’s name does not find a place in the FIR.
Injured has been discharged from the hospital. Petitioner has no bad antecedent. The
petitioner is in custody for the past 20 days. Hence, he may be released on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned CPP submits that due to previous enmity, the
petitioner and others assaulted the defacto complainant with knife. The victim sustained
injuries on his head, right hand finger and back side and he was treated in the hospital for
five days as inpatient. Based on the confession statement of co-accused, this petitioner has
been implicated in this case. However, she submits that injured has been discharged and
the petitioner has no bad antecedent.
5. Petitioner has been in custody for the past 20 days. According to CPP, injured
has been discharged and the petitioner has no bad antecedent. Considering all the above
facts, this court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to following condition.
6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a own

bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) before the Superintendent of the
concerned prison, in which the petitioner has been confined, on his release
or trial.
229-A IPC.
Copy to:
nmk
Crl.M.P.No.8201/2020
Crl.M.P.No.8203/2020
in
Crime No. 446/2020
1. Ramesh @ Chinna Market Ramesh

2. Chandru
3. Moosa Malik .. Petitioners/Accused.
Vs.
State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police(L&O),
D-4 Zambazaar Police Station,
M/s. T.V. Somasundaram, U. Yuvaraj, A. Vinothkumar, Counsel for the petitioners and of
CPP for respondent, this Court delivered the following :
ORDER
1. The petitioners, who were arrested on 16.7.2020 for the offences punishable
under Section 341, 294(b), 324 IPC @ sec. 341, 294(b), 323, 324 and 302 IPC in Crime
No.446/2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent of the
offence. 2nd and 3rd petitioners are 19 years old. There is no specific overtact as against the
petitioners 2 and 3 and they were not at all present in the scene of occurrence. Victim is also
a rowdy element having previous cases. The victim along his friend brutally attacked the 1 st
petitioner’s son and in a sustained provocation, the 1 st petitioner made an assault on the
victim and he fallen self and sustained injury. The petitioners are noway connected with the
alleged offence. The petitioners are in custody from 16.7.2020 and prays for granting bail.
4. According to CPP, due to previous enmity, these petitioners along with other
accused brutally attacked the defacto complainant’s younger son Srikanth with dumbbells
and later he died due to the grievous injury sustained by him. Initially, the case was
registered u/s. 341, 294(b), 324 IPC and subsequently, it has been altered into sec. 341,
294(b), 323, 324, 302 IPC. She further submits that the 1 st petitioner is a habitual offender
having 10 previous cases. Investigation is pending. She further submits that petitioners’
earlier petition was dismissed on 31.7.2020 and there is no change of circumstances. She
seriously opposes the grant of bail.
5. It is a case of 302 IPC. Considering the gravity of offence, the objection raised by
learned CPP that investigation is still pending and the fact that no change in circumstance
was brought to the knowledge of this court after dismissal of earlier petition, this court is not
inclined to grant bail to the petitioners at present.
nmk
Crl.M.P.No.8204/2020
in
P-4, Basin Bridge P.S. Crime No.696/2020
1. Selvam
2. Manjula Petitioners/Accused.
Vs.
State Rep. by
P.4, Basin Bridge Police Station,
M/s. S. Muralidaran, U. Yuvaraj and M. Elayakumar, Counsel for the petitioner and of CPP
for respondent, this Court delivered the following :
ORDER
1. The petitioners, who were arrested on 7.8.2020 for the offence punishable under
Sections 4(1)(aaa), 4(1)(i) r/w. 4(1-A) of TNP Act, Secs. 328, 188, 269 of IPC and Sec.6
and 7 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Smoking and Spitting Act, 2003 and sec. 3 of Epidemic
Act, sec.135 of Tamilnadu Public Health Act, Sec.51(6) of National Disaster Management
Act, 2005 in Crime No.696/2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent.
They have been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioners have no bad antecedent.
2nd petitioner is a woman. 1st petitioner is a brother-in-law of the 2 nd petitioner. The
petitioners are in custody for the past 7 days and hence, prays for granting bail.
4. On the other hand, learned CPP submits that this petitioners along with other
accused were selling banned tobacco products and tasmac brandy bottles without valid
license for gain. Totally, 589 bottles of tasmac brandy, 8.5 Kg of prohibited tobacco
products and sale proceeds Rs.17,200/- were recovered. The arrest of the petitioners are
very recent and objects granting bail.
5. Totally 589 bottles of tasmac brandy and 8.5 Kg of tobacco products were
recovered. The petitioners were arrested recently on 7.8.2020. Considering the huge
quantity of tobacco products and short duration of custody, this court is not inclined to
grant bail to the petitioners at present.
nmk
Crl.M.P.No.8206/2020
in
P-4, Basin Bridge P.S. Crime No.695/2020
Pushpa Petitioner/Accused.
Vs.
State Rep. by
P.4, Basin Bridge Police Station,
M/s. S. Muralidaran, U. Yuvaraj and M. Elayakumar, Counsel for the petitioner and of CPP
for respondent, this Court delivered the following :
ORDER
Sections 4(1)(aaa), 4(1)(i) r/w. 4(1-A) of TNP Act, Secs. 328, 188, 269 of IPC and Sec.6
and 7 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Smoking and Spitting Act, 2003 and Sec. 3 of Epidemic
Act, Sec.135 of Tamilnadu Public Health Act, Sec.51(6) of National Disaster Management
Act, 2005 in Crime No.695/2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a lady, aged 64
years. She has nothing to do with the alleged offence. She could not walk properly
without the help of others. She has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner is
in custody for the past 7 days and hence, prays for granting bail.
accused were selling banned tobacco products and tasmac brandy bottles without valid
license for gain. Totally, 601 bottles of tasmac brandy, 13.5 Kg of prohibited tobacco
products and sale proceeds Rs.20,443/- were recovered. According to learned CPP, the
arrest of the petitioner is very recent and she is the main accused and seriously objects
granting bail.
5. Totally 601 bottles of tasmac brandy and 13.5 Kg of tobacco products were
recovered. The petitioner was arrested recently on 7.8.2020. Considering the huge
quantity of tobacco products and short duration of custody, this court is not inclined to
grant bail to the petitioner at present.
nmk
Crl.M.P.No.8205/2020
in
Crime No.252/2019
Kalidasan .. Petitioner/Accused.
Vs.
State Rep. by
D.4, Zam Bazzar Police Station,
M/s. S.V.D. Rajendra Prasad, Counsel for the petitioner and of CPP for respondent, this
Court delivered the following :
ORDER
Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 336, 397, 427 and 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.252/2019 on the
file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent.
The occurrence took place on 13.10.2019. The petitioner is noway connected with the
alleged offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner is in custody
since 3.8.2020. Hence, he prays for granting bail.
4. On the other hand, the learned CPP submits that this petitioner along with other
accused robbed Rs.1,750/- from the defacto complainant. She further submits that though
the occurrence took place during October 2019, the petitioner was absconding for a long
time and the police were able to arrest him only on 5.8.2020. According to learned CPP,
this petitioner is having three previous cases and she seriously objects for granting bail.
5. According to learned CPP, the petitioner was arrested only on 5.8.2020.

Considering the nature of offence, the bad antecedent of the petitioner and the objection
made by learned CPP, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at present.
nmk
Crl.M.P.No.8210/2020
in
H.1, Washermenpet P.S. Crime No.4741/2020
Kirankumar @ Risli .. Petitioner/Accused.
Vs.
State Rep. by
H.1, Washermenpet Police Station,
M/s. M. Illiyas, N. balaji and A. Venkateswara Babu, Counsel for the petitioner and the CPP,
this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
1. The petitioner, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police, for the
alleged offence u/s. 341, 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) of IPC in Cr.No.4741/2020 on the file of
the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned CPP were heard through Video
Conference.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent. He is
a mentally disabled person and he is taking periodical treatment. Petitioner is noway
connected with the alleged offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. Co-
accused were granted bail by the court below. Hence prays for granting anticipatory bail.
accused waylaid the defacto complainant, an Auto Driver and demanded a cigarette, when
he said he has no cigarette, the accused assaulted him with blade and knife. However,
learned CPP submits that injured has been treated as out-patient.
5. The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with other accused assaulted
the victim with blade and knife. According to learned CPP, injured has been treated as out-
patient. Except Sec.506(ii) IPC, other offences are bailable. No bad antecedent was
reported as against the petitioner. Considering the above facts, 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 one week of regular functioning of courts, before the
XV 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 not tamper with evidence or witness either during
investigation or trial.
[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
[d] 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].
[e] If the petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section
229-A IPC.
Delivered by me today
Copies to:
1. The XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai.
2. CPP, Chennai.
3. The Inspector of Police, H.1, Washermenpet Police Station,
Chennai.
nmk
Crl.M.P.No.8210/2020

Amarjith Bail Order PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Amarjith Bail Order PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Amarjith Bail Order PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS AT CHENNAI

Present: Thiru M.N. Senthil Kumar, M.L.,

Thursday, the 13th day of August , 2020

Thursday, the 13th day of August , 2020

Feroz Ahamed .. Petitioner/Accused.

Sankar @ Periya Appunu .. Petitioner/Accused.

Thursday, the 13th day of August , 2020

Appunu @ Jayakumar .. Petitioner/Accused.

Zakir Hussain .. Petitioner/Accused.

Thursday, the 13th day of August , 2020

Thursday, the 13th day of August , 2020

Viji @ Vellai Viji .. Petitioner/Accused.

Thursday, the 13th day of August , 2020

Kishore Kumar @ Kanna .. Petitioner/Accused.

Thursday, the 13th day of August , 2020

6. Hence, the petition is dismissed.

For the petitioner : M/s. F. Aslam and T. Dhayalamoorthy,

For the petitioners : M/s. B. Karthick, Advocate in Crl.M.P.No.8202/2020

For Respondent : Learned CPP in both the petitions.

5. Petitioners were arrested only on 1.8.2020. Period for custodial interrogation is

6. Hence, both the petitions are dismissed.

3. According to the petitioner’s counsel, the petitioner is innocent. He is noway

6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a own

1. Ramesh @ Chinna Market Ramesh

6. Hence, the petition is dismissed.

6. Hence, the petition is dismissed.

5. According to learned CPP, the petitioner was arrested only on 5.8.2020.

You might also like