Allowed

Paulraj @ Paulpandi v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC9 Dec 2013CRL OP(MD)/19267/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, an accused in a murder and riot case. The court held that no specific fatal overt act was attributed to him and he had no antecedents, regularizing his interim bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on anticipatory bail subject to conditions of no inducement, daily availability for interrogation, and scrupulous compliance with Section 438 Cr.P.C.; fresh bail bond not required.

Paulraj @ Paulpandi Vs the Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶2

Monday, the Ninth day of December Two Thousand Thirteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.19267 of 2013

¶6

PAULRAJ @ PAULPANDI ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN

¶7

THE STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE MARTHANDAM POLICE STATION, KANYAKUMARI DIST. CR. NO. 681/2013. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶8

For Petitioner : MR.M.AJMAL KHAN Senior Counsel for M/S.S.KAMESWARAN

¶9

Advocate

¶10

For Respondent : MR.K.V.RAJARAJAN Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶11

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

¶12

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶13

There are totally nine accused and the petitioner is arrayed as A6 and apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged commission of offences said to have been committed on 22.10.2013 at about 5.00 p.m., punishable under sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 307, 435 and 302 IPC in Crime No.681 of 2013 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶14

The case of the prosecution is that there was a previous enmity between the deceased and the second accused viz., Shajilal and his brothers and on account of the same, they have decided to do away with his life. In order to do the said act, they borrowed a Toyota Car bearing No.TN75 K 8080 from this petitioner/A6 and thereby committed the crime.

¶15

Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/A5 would submit that considering the nature of the allegation levelled against the petitioner, even as per the version of the prosecution, the petitioner was enlarged on interim anticipatory bail on 31.10.2013 and hence, he prays for regularisation of the said bail.

¶16

Learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) on instruction would submit that A2 was enlarged on bail vide order 27.11.2013 made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21344 of 2013 and A8 was also enlarged on bail vide order dated 28.11.2013 made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21502 of 2013 and A6, A7 and A9 are absconding. He would further submit that the petitioner/A6 is not having any antecedent.

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. This Court, taking into consideration of the fact that even as per the case of the prosecution, the petitioner/A6 is said to have given his Toyota Car bearing No.TN75 K 8080 to the accused and that no specific

¶18

fatal overt act attributed against him and further the petitioner is not having any antecedent, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner/A6 on anticipatory bail subject to the following condition:

¶19

(i) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer:

¶20

(ii) The petitioner shall be available for interrogation by the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders.

¶21

(iii) Since the petitioner has already executed a bail bond in terms of the earlier order, dated, 31.10.2013, he need not execute a fresh bail bond. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously.

sd/-

09/12/2013

/ TRUE COPY /

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶26

¶27

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, KUZHITHURAI.

¶28

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT AT NAGERCOIL.

¶29

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

¶30

MARTHANDAM POLICE STATION, KANYAKUMARI DT.

¶31

4 THE ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶32

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶33

+1. CC to M/S.S.KAMESWARAN Advocate SR.No.60960

¶34

AA/10.12.2013/ 2p- 6c/

¶35

ORDER

¶36

¶37

CRL OP(MD) No.19267 of 2013 Date :09/12/2013

¶38

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

Paulraj @ Paulpandi v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paulraj @ Paulpandi 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

Duraipandi Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

J.Yakya Narayanan Vs the Inspector of Police

Vs

Gnanam Vs the Inspector of Police

Mohammed Lmithias Vs the Inspector of Police

Murugan Vs the Inspector of Police