Allowed

Kanagaraj v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC18 Sept 2014CRL OP(MD)/16114/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to Kanagaraj in a case involving alleged assault on a minor due to a property dispute. The court imposed conditions including surrendering money bonds and appearing before police daily until further orders.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be released on bail on appearance before Magistrate upon executing a bond for Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, subject to appearing before police daily.

Kanagaraj Vs the Inspector of Police — Property and Title | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Thursday, the Eighteenth day of September Two Thousand Fourteen PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.16114 of 2014

¶6

KANAGARAJ

¶7

..PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED

S.RAJAGOPAL

..INTERVENOR.

Vs.

STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VILATHIKULAM POLICE STATION, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT. CRIME NO.195/2014.

¶12

..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶13

For Petitioner : M/S.A.JAYARAMACHANDRAN Advocate For Respondent : Mr.K.A.ANBARASAN, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.K.VAMANAN, Advocate

¶14

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

¶15

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶16

The petitioner is A1 apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(B), 324, 506(i) of IPC @ 307 of IPC, in Crime No.195 of 2014, on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶17

2.The case of the prosecution is that A1 and his wife were living separately for quite a long time and on 13.08.2014, A1 along with the other accused went to the house of his wife and attempted to attack his wife, but it fell on his daughter.

¶18

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is owning small extent of land and he is doing agricultural work for his livelihood and in the year 2007, he settled the property, subsequently, he cancelled the settlement deed. But, now the wife of the petitioner, insisted for execution of the settlement deed. Due to which, quarrel arose and hence, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case.

¶19

4.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the intervener submitted that the petitioner attacked his own daughter with Aruval and caused grievous injury on her hand. It is further submitted that the injured has been discharged from the hospital.

¶20

5.The learned counsel appearing for the intervener further submitted that A3 was arrested and still, he is in custody.

¶21

6.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submitted that the victim is aged about 17 years and due to property dispute, the petitioner is said to have attacked the victim.

¶22

7.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ considering the fact that the injured has been discharge from the hospital, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, with certain conditions.

¶23

8.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam and on his executing 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 Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m. until further orders. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously.

¶24

9.The petitioner 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.

¶25

sd/-

¶26

18/09/2014 / TRUE COPY /

¶27

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)

¶28

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VILATHIKULAM, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT.

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VILATHIKULAM POLICE STATION, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT.

¶32

+1. CC to M/S.A.JAYARAMACHANDRAN Advocate SR.No.52848

¶33

ORDER IN

¶34

CRL OP(MD) No.16114 of 2014

¶35

Date :18/09/2014

¶36

PBK 19/09/2014 ::2P-6C:

¶37

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

Kanagaraj v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanagaraj 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

Perumal Vs the Inspector of Police

Arumugam Vs the Inspector of Police

Ravanan Vs the Inspector of Police

Aruna @ Arunachalam Vs the Inspector of Police

Alex Pandian Vs the Inspector of Police

L.Razak @ Anto Razak Vs the Sub-Inspector of Police