Allowed

Ponuchamy v. the Sub - Inspector of Police

Madras HC2 Dec 2013CRL OP(MD)/20708/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail granted to petitioners accused of offences under IPC sections 294(b), 341, 324, 506(ii), 307, 302. Conditions included daily police appearance and executing bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners ordered to be released on bail in event of arrest executing bond of Rs.25,000 with two sureties each for like sum and appearing daily at police station at 11.00 a.m.

Ponuchamy Vs the Sub - Inspector of Police — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Second day of December Two Thousand Thirteen PRESENT

¶2

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶3

CRL OP(MD) No.20708 & 20919 of 2013

¶4

PONUCHAMY ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶5

IN CRL OP(MD).20708 OF 2013

¶6

1.MUTHU IRULAYEE 2.JAYA SUNDARI

¶7

... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.7 & 8 IN CRL OP(MD).20919 OF 2013

¶8

Vs THE STATE REP BY THE SUB - INSPECTOR OF POLICE ABIRAMAM POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DT. CR. NO. 92/2013. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶9

IN BOTH PETITIONS

¶10

For Petitioner : M/S.G.MARIMUTHU Advocate

¶11

IN BOTH PETITIONS

¶12

For Respondent : MR.K.V.RAJARAJAN, Government Advocate(Crl.side) IN BOTH PETITIONS

¶13

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

¶14

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶15

The petitioner in Crl.O.P.(md).No.20708 of 2013 is arrayed as A-2 and the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(md).No.20919 of 2013 are arrayed as A-7 and A-8 and apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police, for the alleged commission of offences punishable under sections 294(b), 341, 324, 506(ii), 307 I.P.C @ 294(b), 341, 324, 506(ii), 307, 302 of IPC, in Crime No.92 of 2013 on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.

¶16

2.The case of the prosecution is that there exists previous enmity with regard to drawing of water in common pipeline and on account of the same, on 12.09.2013 at about 16.00 hours, A-1 and A-3 attacked the deceased Sundara Jeyaraj with iron rod on his head and the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(md).No.20708 of 2013 attacked the deceased with a stick on his left leg. It is further alleged that the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(md). No.20919 of 2013 namely accused Nos.7 & 8 had committed the offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(i) I.P.C.

¶17

3.Mr.G.Marimuthu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that as per the case of the prosecution, A-1 and A-3 are said to have caused fatal injuries and the petitioner/A-2 in Crl.O.P. (md).No.20708 of 2013 is said to have attacked the deceased with a stick https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(md).No.20919 of 2013/A-7 and A-8 did not attribute with any fatal overt act. Therefore, they may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶18

4.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit that A-2 had attacked the deceased with a stick on his left leg and A-7 and A-8 had instigated the accused to commit the offence and strongly opposes these applications for anticipatory bail.

¶19

5.This Court heard the rival submissions and also perused the case diary.

¶20

6.As per post mortem certificate, dated 17.09.2013 issued by the Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Science Department, Madurai Medical College, the deceased died on account of the head injuries. Even as per the overt act, the accused 1 & 3 had caused fatal injuries and the injuries said to have been inflicted by A-2 have not found place in the post mortem certificate in the form of ante-mortem injury. That apart, even as per the allegation, A-7 and A-8 are said to have committed offences under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(i) I.P.C.

¶21

7.Considering the facts and circumstances, this court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail, subject to the following conditions.

¶22

8.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kamudhi and on each executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/(Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioners shall appear before the respondent police daily at 11.00 a.m until further orders. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C., scrupulously.

¶23

9.The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed.

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,KAMUDHI

¶27

2 -DO-THRO'THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT

¶28

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

¶29

4 THE SUB - INSPECTOR OF POLICE ABIRAMAM POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DT.

¶30

+2. CC to M/S.G.MARIMUTHU Advocate SR.No.59622 & 59623 ORDER

¶31

CRL OP(MD) No.20708 & 20919 of 2013

¶32

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

¶33

NA/04/12/2013/P2/7C

Ponuchamy v. the Sub - Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ponuchamy v. the Sub - Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State Rep by Secretary Vs G.Karunairaj

M.Vetri Selvan, Advocate Vs Union of India

Er.N.Raghavendran Vs the Management

Mariappan Vs the Inspector of Police

Prabakaran, Vs the State

Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police