Partly allowed

David @ Lawrance David v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC17 Jun 2016CRL MP(MD)/4838/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, in criminal appeal bail under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C., granted appeal bail and suspended the sentence of imprisonment. The court held that legally arguable points require detailed examination in the main appeal and the appellants were inclined to grant bail prima facie. The appellants were directed to execute bonds with two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Appeal bail granted; sentence of imprisonment suspended; execution of bond by each appellant with two sureties of Rs.10,000 each.

David @ Lawrance David Vs the Inspector of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Seventeenth day of June Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT

¶3

The Hon`ble Dr.Justice P.DEVADASS

¶4

CRL MP(MD) No.4838 of 2016 IN CRL A(MD) No.219 of 2016

¶5

1 DAVID @ LAWRANCE DAVID 2 GANDHI @ ARULANANDHAM ... PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.1 & 3 Vs

¶6

STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ABHIRAMAM POLICE STATION, CR.NO. 132/2007 RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶7

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the petition filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioners/ appellants/ accused in S.C.No. 72/11 dated 20.05.2016 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram and enlarge the petitioners/ appellants/ accused on bail till the disposal of the appeal.

¶8

Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of DAVID @ LAWRANCE DAVID(A1) and GANDHI @ ARULANANDHAM(A3) appeared in person and of MR.P.KANDASAMY, Govt.Advocate(Crl.Side)on behalf of the Respondent, the court made the following order:-

¶9

A1 and A3 in S.C.No.72 of 2011, on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram, while challenging their conviction and sentence, seek appeal bail under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C.

¶10

2. In the said Court, they were convicted and sentenced as detailed below:

¶11

(i) A1 was found guilty under Sections 341 and 323 I.P.C., and sentenced to 1 month R.I., for the offence u/s 341 I.P.C., and 3 months R.I., for the offence u/s 323 I.P.C..

¶12

(ii) A3 was found guilty under Sections 341, 323 r/w 34 I.P.C., and Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and sentenced to 1 month R.I., for the offence u/s 341 I.P.C., 3 months R.I., for the offence u/s 323 r/w 34 I.P.C., and 3 months R.I., for the offence u/s 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, and fined Rs.10,000/-, i/d 1 month S.I.

¶13

3. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Fine amount https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ was paid.

¶14

¶15

4. The petitioners submitted that there are very many legal

¶16

infirmities in the conviction recorded by the Trial Court and they are required to be revised.

¶17

5. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal

¶18

Side) would submit that the conviction recorded by the Trial Court is perfectly correct and it requires no disturbance.

¶19

6. In the facts and circumstances, perusing the impugned judgment and the materials on record, I am of the view that certain eminently arguable points are involved in this appeal. They are required to be examined in detail in the main appeal. It will take some time for the disposal of this criminal appeal. Further, the petitioners were on bail in the Trial Court. I see prima facie case. I am inclined to grant appeal bail to them.

¶20

7. Ordered as under:

¶21

(i) Appeal bail granted to the petitioners. (ii) Sentence of imprisonment imposed upon them alone is suspended.

¶22

(iii)There shall be two sureties for each petitioner, they and each petitioner execute a bond for Rs.10,000/(Rupees ten thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi.

¶23

(iv) The petitioners shall appear before the Trial Court on the first working day of every month at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.

¶24

sd/17/06/2016

¶25

/ TRUE COPY /

¶26

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶27

¶28

1 THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,FAST TRACK MAHILA COURT, RAMANATHAPURAM.

¶29

2 DO-THRO'THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,RAMATHAPURAM.

¶30

3 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,PARAMAKUDI.

¶31

4 DO-THRO'THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶32

5 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,ABHIRAMAM POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶33

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

¶34

+1. C.C. to M/S R.VENKATESWARAN Advocate SR.No.31148

¶35

ORDER IN CRL MP(MD) No.4838 of 2016 IN

¶36

CRL A(MD) No.219 of 2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Date :17/06/2016

¶37

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

¶38

PA/AAL-MPA/SAR III/20.06.2016/2P/8C

David @ Lawrance David v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

David @ Lawrance David 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

Manikandan Vs the Inspector of Police

R. Sundararajan Vs the Inspecor of Police

D. Soundarapandian Vs the Inspector of Police

Backiam Vs the Inspector of Police

Muthu Selvam @ Muthuchellam Vs the Inspector of Police

K.Packiyaraj Vs the Inspector of Police