Allowed

Manikandan v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC16 Sept 2014CRL OP(MD)/16458/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case involving alleged attempt to murder and affray. Court enlarged petitioner on bail with conditions regarding sureties and reporting to police stations daily twice.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail via personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties for similar sums, conditional on residing in Kumbakonam and appearing at police station daily twice.

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

¶1

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

¶2

Tuesday, the Sixteenth day of September Two Thousand Fourteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.16458 of 2014

¶6

MANIKANDAN

¶7

... PETITIONER /3^rd ACCUSED

¶8

Vs THE STATE REB.BY

¶9

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE AMBASAMUTHIRAM POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DT, CRIME NO.216/2014 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT

¶10

For Petitioner : M/S.D.VENKATESH Advocate

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶14

The petitioner is A3 and he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 12.07.2014, for the alleged offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 341, 294(B), 302 of IPC, in Crime No.216 of 2014 on the file of the respondent and hence, seeks bail.

¶15

2.The case of the prosecution is that the accused and the deceased belong to the same village and they had fixed a date to celebrate Issakiamman temple festival and they also used to have the Kabadi Tournament during the temple festival. While so, due to damage done to a statue, misunderstanding arose between the accused group and the de-facto complainant group and in pursuance of the dispute, the accused have conspired together to kill the deceased. The accused 1 to 4 had attacked the deceased with Aruval and the remaining accused attacked the deceased with wooden log.

¶16

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that even though in the FIR, it is alleged that the petitioner had attacked the deceased with Aruval, but subsequently, as per the chart prepared by the respondent police, the overtact attributed against the petitioner is that he attacked the deceased on the left hand.

¶17

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that there is no previous case against the petitioner.

¶18

5.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submitted that the complaint was given by the brother of the deceased and in the FIR itself, the petitioner's name is mentioned and according to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the eye witness, the petitioner attacked the deceased with Aruval indiscriminately.

¶19

6.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) further submitted that major part of the investigation is over and some of the co-accused were granted bail by this court as well as the Sessions Court.

¶20

7.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the petitioner has been incarceration since 12.07.2014, this court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail with certain conditions.

¶21

8.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, Ambasamuthiram and on further condition that the petitioner shall reside at Kumbakonam and appear before the Kumbakonam West Police station daily twice i.e., 10.00 a.m. and 6.00 p.m. until further orders.

¶22

/ TRUE COPY /

¶23

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

¶24

Madurai - 625 023.

¶25

¶26

1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,AMBASAMUTHIRAM.

¶27

2.DO THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TIRUNELVELI.

¶28

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

¶29

4.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL PRISON, PALAYAMKOTTAI.

¶30

5.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE AMBASAMUTHIRAM POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.

¶31

6.THE OFFFICER INCHARGE, THE KUMBAKONAM WEST POLICE STATION, KUMBAKONAM.

¶32

+1. CC to M/S.D.VENKATESH Advocate SR.No.16458

¶33

ORDER

¶34

IN CRL OP(MD) No.16458 of 2014 Date :16/09/2014 RG.16.09.2014 2P/8C

¶35

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

Manikandan v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manikandan 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

R. Murugesan Vs the Inspector of Police

S.J.Cephas Jackwin Vs the Inspector of Police

G.Prakash Vs the Inspector of Police

Thangamani Vs the Inspector of Police

Manikandan Vs the Sub-Inspector of Police

Kuppayammal Vs the Inspector of Police