Madras High Court
CRL OP/28982/2017 of MAHESH @ MAHESHKUMAR,M/30 Vs STATE REP.BY on 28 December 2017
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS( Criminal Jurisdiction )
Thursday, the Twenty Eighth day of December Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT
The Hon`ble Mr Justice R.PONGIAPPAN
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.28982 of 2017
1 MAHESH @ MAHESHKUMAR, [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED ]
2 VENKATAJALAPATHI @ PATHI,
3 SURESH @ KEMPAN,
4 HARISH,
5 SURESH,
Vs
STATE REP.BY [ RESPONDENT ]THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THALLY POLICE STATION, KRISHNAGIRI, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT.CR.NO.413/2017
For Petitioner : M/S.R.SAGADEVAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.R.SEKAR, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)
PETITION FOR BAIL 439 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- Heard both sides.
2. The petitioners 1 to 5 are arrayed as accused 1 to 5 in CrimeNo.413 of 2017 and were arrested and remanded to Judicial Custody on26.10.2017 for the alleged offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 395,506(ii) of IPC on the file of the respondent police.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitionersintercepted one Babu and took Rs.2,000/- from his pocket by showingknife and also took watch, cellphone and also broken the cool drinksbottles from the near by shop by throwing them into the road anduttered filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submittedthat these petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case andhence he prayed for granting bail to the petitioners herein.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) filed counter andreiterated the submissions stated in the counter.
6. Considering the submissions made by either side, it appearsthat the offence under Sections 341, 294(b), 395, 506(ii) of IPC hasbeen registered against these petitioners. The first, second and third petitioners are now in Judicial custody from 26.10.2017. Nowconsidering the submissions made by the learned Government Advocateit would show that the petitioners 1 to 3 are having previous cases.Therefore this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as againstpetitioners 1 to 3. Fourth and Fifth accused/petitioners are havingonly one previous case each. On this ground the learned GovernmentAdvocate agitated this petition. Even though investigation has notbeen completed in this case, considering the previous antecedents ofthe petitioners and also considering the detention period, this Courtis inclined to grant bail only for fourth and fifthpetitioners/accused. Since the first, second and third petitionersare having number of previous cases, this Court is not inclined togrant bail.
7. Taking all the above said aspects into consideration, havingregard to the period of detention, this Court is of the view that thecustodial interrogation of the petitioners are not necessary andtherefore, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners 4and 5 subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail on hisexecuting a bond for Rs.10,000/- each with two sureties for a likesum each to the satisfaction of District Munsif cum JudicialMagistrate Court, Denkanikottai.
(ii) The petitioners 4 and 5 shall report before the respondent /police daily at 10.00 a.m. for a period of one month and thereafter,as and when required for interrogation.
(iii) On the failure of the petitioners 4 and 5 to comply withconditions regularly, bail granted to him shall stand cancelledautomatically and the petition is allowed accordingly.
(iv) The petitioners 4 and 5 shall not tamper the evidence or witnesseither during investigation or trial.
(v) The petitioners 4 and 5 shall not abscond either duringinvestigation or trial.
Conclusion
(vi) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learnedMagistrate / Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actionagainst the petitioners 4 and 5 in accordance with law as if theconditions have been imposed and the petitioners 4 and 5 released onbail by the learned Magistrate / Trial Court himself as laid down bythe Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji Vs State of Kerala [(2005) AIRSCW 5560].
-sd/-
28/12/2017
This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carriedinto execution by all concerned TRUE COPY
Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.)
High Court, Madras - 600 104.
TO
1 THE DISTIRCT MUNSIF CUMJUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,DENKANIKOTTAI
2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATEKRISHNAGIRI[FOR INFORMATION]
3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTORHIGH COURT, MADRAS.
4 THE SUPERINTENDENT,CENTRAL PRISON,SALEM
5 STATE REP.BYTHE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THALLY POLICE STATION, KRISHNAGIRI, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT.
CC to M/S.R.SAGADEVAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.
CRL OP.28982/2017
Date :28/12/2017
RD 28/12/2017