Allowed

A.Periyakaruppan v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC21 Jan 2013CRL OP(MD)/565/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court granted bail to the petitioner, an accused in a robbery case under Section 395 IPC, who was in judicial custody. The court directed release upon execution of a bond with sureties and reporting to the police daily.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on ₹10,000 with two sureties each, and directed to report to police daily at 10.00 a.m. and 05.00 p.m.

A.Periyakaruppan Vs the Inspector of Police — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

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

¶2

Monday, the Twenty First day of January Two Thousand Thirteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

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

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.565 of 2013

¶6

A.PERIYAKARUPPAN : PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2

¶7

Vs.

¶8

THE STATE REP.BY

¶9

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE UCHIPULI POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT. CR.NO.339/2012

¶10

: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶11

For Petitioner : M/S. P.KANNADASAN Advocate

¶12

For Respondent : MR. P.JOTHI Additional Public Prosecutor

¶13

PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

¶14

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶15

The petitioner who was arrested and remanded to the judicial custody on 24.12.2012 for the alleged offences under Section 395 IPC, in Crime No.339 of 2012, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶16

The case of the prosecution is that on 23.11.2012 at about 8.45 p.m the petitioner/accused and other accused entered into the house of the de-facto complainant, attacked the de-facto complainant, threatened the de-facto complainant's mother, attacked her and snatched five sovereign of gold chain from her and snatched eight sovereign of gold chain ear ring from the de-facto complainant's wife.

¶17

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and also persued the materials available on record.

¶18

Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner is innocent and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that though all stolen articles were

¶19

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

¶20

recovered, nothing was recovered from him. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody from 24.12.2012.

¶21

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner is not involved in any previous case. He further submits that the petitioner and others while committing robbery have caused injury to the de-facto complainant and his mother.

¶22

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody from 24.12.2012, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶23

Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each for a likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram and on further condition that the petitioner shall report before the respondent pocile daily morning at 10.00 a.m and evening at 05.00 p.m until further orders.

¶24

sd/-

¶25

21/01/2013

¶26

/ TRUE COPY /

¶27

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)

¶28

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

¶29

Madurai - 625 023.

¶30

¶31

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.2 RAMANATHAPURAM

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE UCHIPULI POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT

¶35

5 THE OFFICER IN-CHARGE, SUB JAIL, RAMANATHAPURAM

¶36

+1 CC to M/S. P.KANNADASAN Advocate SR.No.2288

¶37

ORDER IN

¶38

CRL OP(MD) No.565 of 2013

¶39

Date :21/01/2013

¶40

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

¶41

NSV/22.1.13/2P/7C

A.Periyakaruppan v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Periyakaruppan 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

N.Thangarajan Vs the Inspector of Police

N.Sikkandar Mydeen, Vs the Inspector of Police

Viji, Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Kumar Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

Manikandan @ Thirumaran Vs the Inspector of Police

Laila @ Fathima Vs the Sub-Inspector of Police