Allowed

Balaji v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC19 Feb 2014CRL OP(MD)/2343/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, an accused in a case involving sections 341, 147, 148, and 302 IPC. The court ordered release contingent on executing a bond and daily police appearance until further orders.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on appearance before Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai, executing bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, and appearing before police daily.

Balaji Vs the Inspector of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

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

¶2

Wednesday, the Nineteenth day of February Two Thousand Fourteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.2343 of 2014

¶6

BALAJI ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN

¶7

STATE THROUGH

¶8

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SELLUR POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT

¶9

IN CRIME NO. 1019 OF 2013 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT)

¶10

For Petitioner : M/S.T.SUGADEV Advocate

¶11

For Respondent : M/S.K.V.RAJARAJAN,Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶12

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

¶13

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶14

There are totally 14 accused and this petitioner is arrayed as A.14 and apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 341, 147, 148 and 307 of IPC altered into 341, 147, 148 and 302 of IPC in Crime No.1019 of 2013 and hence seeks anticipatory bail.

¶15

The offences were said to have committed on 6/10/2013 at about 17.30 hours and the complaint was given by the father of the deceased at about 21.00 hours on the same date.

¶16

A perusal of the FIR would disclose that the deceased is the son of the defacto complainant and he was eking out his livelihood as a mason and there was a previous enmity between the accused group and the friends of the deceased and on account of the same, all the accused had surrounded the deceased and A.1 and A.2 had attacked the son of the defacto complainant with knives.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is sought to be implicated only on the basis of confession given by the accused No.9 and even as per his confession https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ statement this petitioner along with other accused said to have surrounded the deceased.

¶18

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused No.1 who has not been attributed with overt act, this Court vide order dated 31/12/2014 made in Crl.O.P. (MD) No.1725 of 2014 granted anticipatory bail.

¶19

The learned Government Advocate would submit that A.1 and A.2 were enlarged on bail by the Sessions Court and this petitioner has not been attributed with any fatal overtact and he is not having any antecedent and further that the investigation is pending.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the State and also perused the entire materials available on record.

¶21

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the allegations levelled against this petitioner, is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai and on 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 Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 11.00 a.m until further orders. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously.

¶22

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.

¶23

/ TRUE COPY /

¶24

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

¶25

¶26

1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II, MADURAI

¶27

2.DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,MADURAI DISRICT 3.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶28

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI

¶29

4.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

¶30

SELLUR POLICE STATION,MADURAI DISTRICT +1. CC to M/S.T.SUGADEV Advocate SR.No.10293 RL/6 C- 21/2/2014

¶31

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

Balaji v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balaji 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

Senthil Vs the Inspector of Police

Avudaiyappan Vs the Inspector of Police

Muthuraman Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Xavier Vs the Inspector of Police

M.Rajendran Vs the Inspector of Police

P.Pandi Vs the Inspector of Police