Madras High Court
CRL OP(MD)/16029/2020 of T.Surya Vs The Inspector of Police on 30 December 2020
BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 30/12/2020 PRESENT The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN CRL OP(MD). No.16029 of 2020 T.Surya ... Petitioner/Accused-1 Vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by it's Inspector of Police, Abiramam Police Station, Ramanathapuram. Crime No.530 of
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
( Criminal Jurisdiction )
Date : 30/12/2020PRESENT
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN
CRL OP(MD). No.16029 of 2020
T.Surya ... Petitioner/Accused-1
Vs
The State of Tamil NaduRep. by it's Inspector of Police,Abiramam Police Station, Ramanathapuram.
Crime No.530 of 2020. ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : M/s.Bhagavath Singh, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.R.Erottuchamy,
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C.
PRAYER :-
For Bail in Crime No.530 of 2020 on the file of the RespondentPolice.
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/A1, who was arrested and remanded to judicialcustody on 13.12.2020 for the offences punishable under Sections294(b),323,324, 506(ii) and 307 of IPC on the file of the respondentpolice seeks bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that due to pathway disputebetween the petiitoner and the defacto complainant the petitionerand other accused persons attacked the defacto complainant andcaused injuries and also made an attempt to murder him.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that thepetitioner is no way connected with the offence and he is innocent.https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/He would also submit that the injured was also discharged from thehospital.
4. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) would submit thatthere are totally two accused in this case and the petitioner hereinis arrayed as A1. Due to pathway dispute between the petitionerand the defacto complainant the petitioner and other accusedpersons attacked the defacto complainant and caused injuries andalso made an attempt to murder him. He would also submit that theinjured was also discharged from the hospital and the co-accused inthis case was granted bail by the learned Principal District andSessions Judge, Ramanathapuram.
5. Taking note of the above facts and circumstances of the caseand also taking into consideration the period of incarceration andalso taking note of the fact that the injured was discharged fromthe hospital and also the fact that co-accused in this case wasgranted bail by the Court below, this Court is inclined to grantbail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:
6.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bailon his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees TenThousand only) with two blood sureties each for a like sum to thesatisfaction of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Kamuthi.
i) the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumbimpression in the surety bond and the Magistrate/concerned court mayobtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank Pass Book to ensure theiridentity
ii) the petitioner shall report before the respondent policedaily at 10.30 a.m until further orders.
iii)the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness.
iv) the petitioner shall not abscond during trial.
v)On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learnedMagistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actionagainst the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditionshave been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learnedMagistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].
vi) If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can beregistered under Section 229A IPC.
sd/-
30/12/2020
Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. Madurai - 625 023.
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic,a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but,ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correctcopy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigantconcerned.
TO
1. THE DISTRICT MUNSIF CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KAMUTHI. KAMUTHI.
2. DO-THROUGH : THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.
3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ABIRAMAM POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.
4. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
5. THE OFFICER INCHARGE, DISTRICT PRISON, RAMANATHAPURAM.
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.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.16029 of 2020 Date :30/12/2020
AAV/SJI
TE/SMA/SAR-III : 30/12/2020 : 3P/6C