Allowed

Raju v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC10 Sept 2014CRL OP(MD)/16001/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court granted bail to the accused No.2 in a murder case involving death by strangulation and alleged disposal of the body, after incarceration exceeding 50 days, subject to personal bond and daily police appearance conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties, and appearing daily before the police until further orders.

Raju Vs the Inspector of Police — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

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

¶2

Wednesday, the Tenth day of September Two Thousand Fourteen

¶3

PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶4

CRL OP(MD) No.16001 of 2014

¶5

RAJU

¶6

... PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.2

¶7

Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE K.PUDUPPATTY POLICE STATION, PUDUKKOTTAI DT. CR. NO.95 OF 2014. ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT

¶8

For Petitioner : M/S.A.K.MANICKAM Advocate

¶9

For Respondent : MR.K.ANBARASAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶10

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

¶11

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶12

The petitioner is A2 and he was surrendered before the court and remanded to judicial custody on 23.07.2014 for the alleged offence punishable under section 174 of Cr.P.C @ 302 r/w 201 of IPC, in Crime No.95 of 2014, on the file of the respondent and hence, seeks bail.

¶13

2.The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Venkatesan borrowed money from A1 and on 17.07.2014, the deceased and the accused travelled in the Car of A1 and while travelling, the deceased had agreed to give some surety for the loan borrowed by him, but after consuming liquor, he refused and started quarreling, with A1. Enraged by the act of the deceased, A1 attacked the deceased with hands and after, he fell down, A1 strangulated the deceased and thereby caused his death. The specific overtact attributed against the petitioner is that he caught hold of the deceased and thereafter, he helped A1 for the disposal of the body.

¶14

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the occurrence had taken place on 17.07.2014,but the case was registered on 18.07.2014, on the basis of the complaint of the Village Administrative Officer and the accused had surrendered on 23.07.2014 and after getting police custody, the accused have given statement, implicating them selves in this case. Thereafter, charge sheet was altered into 302 and 201 of IPC. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner did not have any intention or motive to murder the deceased and even as per the case of the prosecution, the occurrence had taken place in a sudden quarrel between the deceased and A1.

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner did not have any transaction with the deceased and he has been falsely implicated in this case.

¶16

5.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submitted that the petitioner caught hold of the deceased, at that time of occurrence and subsequently, the body was taken in the Car of A1 and he actively participated for the disposal of the body.

¶17

6.Considering the overtact attributed against the petitioner and his incarceration for more than 50 days, this court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail with certain conditions.

¶18

7.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, on his executing a personal 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, Thirumayam and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m. until further orders.

¶19

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)

¶20

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶21

¶22

1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,THIRUMAYAM.

¶23

2.DO THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PUDUKKOTTAI.

¶24

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

¶25

4.THE OFFICER INCHARGE, SUB JAIL, PUDUKKOTTAI.

¶26

5.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE K.PUDUPPATTY POLICE STATION, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT.

¶27

+1. CC to M/S.A.K.MANICKAM Advocate SR.No.50888

¶28

rg.10.09.2014 2p.7c.

¶29

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

Raju v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju 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

Stella @ Malar Vizhi Vs the Inspector of Police

V. Thirupathy Vs the Inspector of Police

Venkatesan Vs the Inspector of Police

G.Selvakumar Vs the Inspector of Police

Hussain Vs the Inspector of Police

Manikandan @ Pappa Vs the Inspector of Police