Madras High Court
CRL OP(MD)/23647/2013 of KRISHNAMOORTHY Vs STATE REP. BY on 30 December 2013
BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Thirtieth day of December Two Thousand Thirteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice P.N.PRAKASH CRL OP(MD) No.23647 of 2013 KRISHNAMOORTHY ..PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 Vs STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANTHANALLUR POLICE
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
( Criminal Jurisdiction )
Monday, the Thirtieth day of December Two Thousand ThirteenPRESENTThe Hon`ble Mr Justice P.N.PRAKASH
CRL OP(MD) No.23647 of 2013
KRISHNAMOORTHY Vs
..PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1
STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANTHANALLUR POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR DISTRICT. (CRIME NO. 294/2013)..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
For Petitioner : M/S.A.THIRUVADI KUMAR Advocate For Respondent : Mr.A.P.BALASUBRAMANI, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who was arrested by the respondent police on2/11/2013 for the alleged offence under Sections 286, 337, 338, 304 IPCr/w. Section 9 (B) (a) of Explosives Act in Crime No.294 of 2013 on thefile of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thepetitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence.
3. Learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) would submit that thedefacto complainant is a worker in the cracker manufacturing unit and thepetitioner/A.2 is the owner of such unit and A.1 is the son of A.2 andthere was an accident in the said cracker unit, in which there were 10casuality and three persons were injured and the defacto complainant isstill taking treatment and investigation is pending. Hence he stronglyobjected to grant bail to the petitioner.
4. I have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward byeither side and also perused the materials available on record.
5. Considering all these facts and also considering the fact, I aminclined to grant the relief of bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, thepetitioner is directed to be released on bail on their executing a bondfor a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two suretieseach for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned II AdditionalDistrict Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam, and on furthercondition that the petitioner shall stay at Madurai shall appear beforeTallakulam Police Station daily at 11.00 a.m., until further orders.
sd/-
30/12/2013
/ TRUE COPY /
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)
TO
1 THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MUNSIF CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,KUMBAKONAM, THANJAVUR DISTRICT.
2 -DO-THRO'THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THANJAVUR AT KUMBAKONAM.
3 THE ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT,MADURAI.
4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANTHANALLUR POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR DISTRICT.THANJAVUR DISTRICT.
5 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, TRICHY.
6 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TALLAKULAM POLICE STATION, MADURAI.
+1. CC to M/S.A.THIRUVADI KUMAR Advocate SR.No.64395
ORDER IN
CRL OP(MD) No.23647 of 2013
Date :30/12/2013
PBK 31/12/2013 2P/8C