Allowed

Varadharajan @ Kannan v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC3 Jun 2013CRL OP(MD)/8202/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court granted bail to the accused in a murder case under Section 302 IPC. The court noted the investigation was substantially over, chemical reports awaited, and interrogation complete. Bail was granted subject to a bond and appearance conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with Rs. 10,000 bond and two sureties; must stay in Tiruchirappalli and appear to Magistrate daily.

Varadharajan @ Kannan Vs the Inspector of Police — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

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

¶2

Monday, the Third day of June Two Thousand Thirteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.8202 of 2013

¶6

VARADHARAJAN @ KANNAN ..PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.2 Vs.

¶7

STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE AMATHUR POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT. CR. NO. 47/2013.

¶8

..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶9

For Petitioner : M/S.C. MAYIL VAHANA RAJENDRAN Advocate

¶10

For Respondent : Mr.A.P.BALASUBRAMANI, Government Advocate, (Crl.Side)

¶11

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

¶12

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶13

The petitioner/A2 prays for the grant of bail under section 439 Cr.P.C. for the alleged offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. in crime No.47 of 2013, on the file of the respondent-police.

¶14

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the State.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case. The alleged occurrence is said to have been taken place on 21.02.2013 and the complaint has been given only on 24.02.2013 by the Village Administrative Officer. During the investigation, A1, the friend of the petitioner, who was arrayed as A2 was arrested and the petitioner was arrested on 22.04.2013 and now he is in custody for more than 40 days. The investigation is considerably over.

¶16

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this petitioner is the friend of A1, who had illicit intimacy with the wife of the deceased. The wife of the deceased has always demanded money and hence, she was murdered. The accused were arrested on 28.02.2013. Now, the investigation is considerably over and hence, he prays for bail.

¶17

5.Resisting the same, the learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit that the case is based on circumstantial evidence and the investigation is going on. The prosecution is awaiting for chemical report and hence, the charge sheet is yet to be filed and hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the application.

¶18

6.Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perusal of records, it would reveal that the alleged https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ occurrence is said to have been taken place on 21.02.2013. The complaint has been given only on 24.02.2013 by the Village Administrative Officer. But, earlier, a previous case has been registered against the petitioner

¶19

and A1 has murdered the wife of the deceased. According to the learned Government Advocate (criminal side), charge sheet is yet to be filed for want of chemical report. Since the investigation is considerably over and the entire interrogation is already over, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶20

7.Accordingly, the petitioner is released on bail subject to the following conditions:

¶21

(i) The petitioner shall execute a 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 Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar; and (ii) The petitioner should stay at Tiruchirappalli and he should appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruchirappalli daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders.

¶22

sd/-

¶23

03/06/2013

¶24

/ TRUE COPY /

¶25

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)

¶26

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II, VIRUDHUNAGAR.

¶27

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

¶28

3 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI.

¶29

4 -DO-THRO'THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TIRUCHIRAPALLI.

¶30

5 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AMATHUR POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.

¶31

6 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, MADURAI.

¶32

+1. CC to M/S.C. MAYIL VAHANA RAJENDRAN Advocate SR.No.29041

¶33

ORDER IN

¶34

CRL OP(MD) No.8202 of 2013

¶35

Date :03/06/2013

¶36

PBK 05/06/2013 2P/8C

¶37

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

Varadharajan @ Kannan v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varadharajan @ Kannan 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

Mohamed Yasin Vs the Inspector of Police

T.Lingdurai Vs Inspector of Police

Paulchamy Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

T.R. Mohanram Vs the Commissioner of Police

S.M.Muthupandi Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Muthupandian Vs the Inspector of Police