Allowed

Narayanan v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC6 Jun 2013CRL OP(MD)/8161/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order granted anticipatory bail to three petitioners accused in a criminal case. The court noted the investigation was considerably over, the injured was discharged, and another accused was already on bail. Bail was subject to execution of bond and daily reporting.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners ordered to be released on bail upon arrested or appearance, subject to bond execution and daily reporting.

Narayanan Vs the Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Thursday, the Sixth day of June Two Thousand Thirteen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA

¶6

CRL OP(MD) No.8161 of 2013

¶7

1 NARAYANAN

¶8

2 SUBRAMANIAN @ MANI PILLAI 3 S.KOMBIAH ..PETITIONERS/ACCUSED

¶9

¶10

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PERUMALPURAM POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. (CRIME NO.254/2013)

¶11

..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶12

For Petitioner : M/S. R. JIM Advocate

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.A.P.BALASUBRAMANI, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mrs.R.Meenakumari, Advocate

¶14

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

¶15

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶16

The petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 307 and 506(ii) I.P.C., read with 109 of I.P.C. in crime No.254 of 2013 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.

¶17

2.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that even in the F.I.R. itself,no overt act against the petitioner. The alleged occurrence is said to have been taken place on 08.05.2013 at 830 a.m. and the complaint has been given on the same day and the injured in discharged from the hospital and the investigation is also considerably over. He would further submit that A1 has already been enlarged on bail and hence, he has prayed for anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶18

4.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit that the case has been registered against A1 to A4 and A1 was arrested and already released on bail and the injured has been discharged from the hospital and the investigation is considerably over and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application.

¶19

5.The learned counsel for the intervenor would submit that the injured is taking treatment in the private hospital and hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the application.

¶20

6.Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and on perusal of records, in the F.I.R. It was specifically mentioned that only A1 Lakshmanan alone has assaulted the injured/defacto complainant and no overt act against the petitioner and the injured person has been https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ discharged from the hospital and A1 was arrested and enlarged on bail and the investigation is considerably over, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, with certain conditions.

¶21

7.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate NO.1, Tirunelveli, and each of them executing a separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten 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 report before the Court concerned daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously.

¶22

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.

sd/-

06/06/2013

/ TRUE COPY /

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)

¶27

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, TIRUNELVELI.

¶28

2 -DO-THRO'THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TIRUNELVELI.

¶29

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

¶30

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERUMALPURAM POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.

¶31

+1. CC to M/S. R.JIM Advocate SR.No.29651

¶32

+1CC to M/s.D.BalaMurugapandi, Advocate in SR.No.29412

¶33

ORDER IN

¶34

CRL OP(MD) No.8161 of 2013

¶35

Date :06/06/2013

¶36

PBK 10/06/2013 2P/7C

¶37

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

Narayanan v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayanan 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

G.Alagesan, Vs Ilangovan

Muthusamy Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

S.Varadaraja Boopathy Vs S.Sornapandian

C.Nirmala Vs the Inspector of Police

Avudaiyappan Vs Kalyani

C.Thirukannan Vs the Inspector of Police