Allowed

V.Gnanasekaran v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC18 Sept 2013CRL OP(MD)/12815/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to three petitioners accused under Section 302 IPC. The court relied on the post-mortem report indicating insecticide in stomach contents and a lack of foul play suspicion, ordering daily police sight for two weeks as a condition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners ordered to be enlarged on bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. with a bond of Rs. 10,000 and daily police appearance for two weeks.

V.Gnanasekaran Vs the Inspector of Police — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Wednesday, the Eighteenth day of September Two Thousand Thirteen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice C.T.SELVAM

¶6

CRL OP(MD) No.12815 of 2013

¶7

1 V.GNANASEKARAN

¶8

2 S.SUNDARAMOOTHI

¶9

3 N.SHANMUGASUNDARAM ..PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 to 3

¶10

Vs.

¶11

STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THANDIKUDI POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. CRIME NO. 157 OF 2012.

¶12

..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶13

For Petitioner : M/S.K.SENTHIL Advocate

¶14

For Respondent : Mrs.S.PRABHA, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶15

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.

¶16

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶17

The petitioners/A1 to A3 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for alleged offences punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. in Crime No.157 of 2012 on the file of the respondent police and hence, they have come forward with this petition seeking anticipatory bail.

¶18

2.The allegation against the petitioners that the petitioners had suspected that they might have caused injuries on the deceased testis and thereby caused the death of the deceased. On 19.10.2012 the deceased viz., Varadharajan and Dhandapani along with the petitioners went to Estate and stayed in the guest house for story discussion at Thandikudi. In the evening the two deceased consumed more liquor and slept outside of the guest house, the petitioners slept inside of the guest house. The next day when the petitioners wake up and opened the door and found that the two persons were found dead and no injuries were found on their bodies. The petitioners were shocked and immediately called the ambulance and informed both the wives of the deceased.

¶19

3.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have no way connected with the alleged offence.

¶20

4.Heard the Learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) on the above submissions.

¶21

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the counter informs of earlier interrogation of the petitioner conducted by the respondent that the post mortem report informs of stomach contents smelling of insecticide and no foul play was suspected in the death of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ one another at the same time and place, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶22

6.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul subject to the following conditions:-

¶23

(i) The petitioners shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) each with two sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned; and

¶24

(ii)The petitioners shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation.

¶25

/ TRUE COPY /

¶26

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO

¶27

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, DINDIGUL.

¶28

2 -DO-THRO'THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL

¶29

3 THE ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT,MADURAI.

¶30

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THANDIKUDI POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

¶31

+1. CC to M/S.K.SENTHIL Advocate SR.No.46247

¶32

PBK 20/09/2013 2P/6C

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

V.Gnanasekaran v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Gnanasekaran v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Syed Abudahir Vs the Inspector of Police

Kasimayan Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Vellusamy Vs the Inspector of Police

Ganeshpandi Vs the Inspector of Police

P.Palanichamy Vs the Inspector of Police

Selvan Vs the Inspector of Police