Allowed

Arumugam v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC17 Oct 2014CRL OP(MD)/16293/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court granted bail to the petitioner, the eighth accused, pursuant to Section 439 Cr.P.C. after noting his custody duration and the release of co-accused on bail. The order imposed conditions including a bond with sureties and daily appearance before the Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Order to release petitioner on bail by executing a bond for Rs. 10,000 with two sureties each for a like sum, and appearing daily before the Magistrate.

Arumugam Vs the Inspector of Police — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

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

¶2

Friday, the Seventeenth day of October Two Thousand Fourteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr Justice G.CHOCKALINGAM

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.16293 of 2014

¶6

ARUMUGAM ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED No.7

¶7

¶8

THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ABIRAMAM POLICE STATION, RAMNAD DIST, CR.NO.55/2014 ... RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT

¶9

For Petitioner : M/S.R.ANAND Advocate

¶10

For Respondent : Mr.P.Kannithevan 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 is the eighth accused and he was arrested by the respondent police on 01.08.2014 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 506(ii), 395 and 397 of IPC and M.O.I(D) and later on altered into Sections 341, 294(b), 506(ii), 395, 397, 120(B), 412 and 414 I.P.C, in Crime No.55 of 2014, on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks bail.

¶14

2.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence and he is in custody for more than 75 days. He further submitted that the coaccused were already released on bail. Hence, he prays for bail in favour of the petitioner.

¶15

3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) also admitted the contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶16

4.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that in this case, co-accused were already released on bail, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶17

5.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered 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 like sum to the satisfaction of the learned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

Judicial Magistrate, Kamuthi and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders without fail.

¶19

/ TRUE COPY /

¶20

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO

¶21

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KAMUTHI. 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, RAMANATHAPURAM. 3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ABIRAMAM POLICE STATION, RAMNAD DISTRICT. 5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL PRISON, MADURAI. +2. CC to M/S.R.ANAND Advocate SR.No. 56887 & 52313

¶22

TS/ 17.10.2014/2P-8C

¶23

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

Arumugam v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arumugam 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

J.Soman @ Somasundaram Vs the Inspector of Police

Murugan Vs the Inspector of Police

A.Karnan Vs the Inspector of Police

V.Rajapandi Vs the Inspector of Police

Abin Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

S.Annamalai @ Jeevarathinam Vs the Inspector of Police