Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Suresh Alias Hari vs State Represented by, the Inspector of Police

Suresh Alias Hari vs State Represented by, the Inspector of Police

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jan 09, 2025
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1711391

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
CRL OP/455/2025

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Suresh Alias Hari

Respondent

State Represented by, the Inspector of Police

Excerpt

.....condition that may be imposed by this court. 3.the case of the prosecution as putforth by the learned government advocate (criminal side) appearing for the respondent police, opposing for grant of bail, is that the petitioner waylaid the de facto complainant and robbed rs.350/- from him at knife point. he further submits that there are fourteen previous cases against the petitioner. 4.having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned government advocate (criminal side) for the respondent police and perused the materials available on record and considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions and accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of rs.15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand only) with two sureties, (out of which, one surety should be a blood related surety) each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned xv metropolitan magistrate, george town, chennai and on further conditions that:[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; [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police, everyday at 06.30 p.m., until further orders; [c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; [d] 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 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 accused thereafter absconds, a.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 09.01.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Suresh @ Hari ... Petitioner Vs. State represented by: The Inspector of Police, Korukkupet, Cr. No.1295/2024 ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail pending in Cr. No.1295/2024 on the file of the respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.E.Anandababu For Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

Petition seeking bail in respect of Crime No. 1295 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 309(4), 351(2) of BNS, 2023 is on board for consideration. 2.The incarceration of the petitioner being from 04.12.2024 pleading innocence on the part of the petitioner and false implication in the case, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court. He also submits that the petitioner is no way connected with the alleged offences and he is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this court. 3.The case of the prosecution as putforth by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police, opposing for grant of bail, is that the petitioner waylaid the de facto complainant and robbed Rs.350/- from him at knife point. He further submits that there are fourteen previous cases against the petitioner. 4.Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent Police and perused the materials available on record and considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions and accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two sureties, (out of which, one surety should be a blood related surety) each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and on further conditions that:

[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; [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police, everyday at 06.30 p.m., until further orders; [c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; [d] 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 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 accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.

sai

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA., J.

sai To

1. The XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai

2. The Inspector of Police, Korukkupet.

3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial