Allowed

K.Kumar, v. the Deputy Superintendent of

Madras HC4 Dec 2017CRL MP(MD)/10989/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court, Criminal Bench, granted appeal bail to a husband convicted under the SC/ST (POA) Act. The court suspended the sentence of imprisonment pending disposal of the criminal appeal, noting the existence of interesting plea and prima facie case in his favor, subject to surety bonds.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of imprisonment suspended pending disposal of the criminal appeal; bail granted with two sureties.

K.Kumar, Vs the Deputy Superintendent of — Caste Atrocities | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

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

¶2

Monday, the Fourth day of December Two Thousand Seventeen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice A.M.BASHEER AHAMED

¶5

CRL MP(MD) No.10989 of 2017 IN CRL A(MD) No.484 of 2017

¶6

K.POTHUM PONNU ... PETITIONER/3^rd PARTY

¶7

¶8

1 THE STATE REP.BY,

¶9

THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

¶10

THIRUMANGALAM DIVISION, MADURAI DISTRICT. (CRIME NO.269 OF 2016)

¶11

2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

¶12

AUSTINPATTI POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT.

¶13

(CR.NO.269 OF 2016) ... RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the petition filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to enlarge the petitioners Husband, K.Kumar, S/o.Karthi, on Bail in by suspending the sentence imposed on him by the learned III Additional District & Sessions Court (PCR), Madurai in Spl.S.C.No.97 of 2016, dated 15.11.2017, pending disposal of the and thus render justice.

¶15

Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.M.GURURAJ, Advocate for the petitioner and of MR.C.MAYILVAHANA RAJENDRAN, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents while admitting CRL A the court made the following order:-

¶16

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the Petitioner / third party, who is the wife of the accused, praying to suspend the sentence of imprisonment imposed on her husband, who is arrayed as A2 before the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, (PCR), Madurai, in its order dated 15.11.2017 in Spl.C.C.No.97 of 2016 pending disposal of the above Criminal Appeal.

¶17

2.After trial, A2 has been convicted and sentenced as under:

¶18

Conviction Sentence

¶19

Section 341 of 1 month S.I. + Fine of Rs.500/-, i/d 1 week IPC r/w Section 3 S.I. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act

¶20

Section 323 of IPC 1 Year R.I. + Fine of Rs.1,000/-, i/d 1 r/w Section 3(2) month S.I. (va) of SC/ST (POA) Act

¶21

Section 324 of IPC 3 Years R.I. + Fine of Rs.1,000/-, i/d 3 r/w Section 3(2) months S.I. (va) of SC/ST (POA) Act

¶22

3.Fine amount has been paid by the accused/A2. The accused is confined in prison from the date of judgment in this case.

¶23

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/third party submitted that the accused/A2 was totally stranger to the de facto complainant by which he has no knowledge of the caste of the de facto complainant by which provisions under Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act will not get attracted against the accused/A2 and no specific overt act against the accused/A2 has been established in the evidence of prosecution and there is no corroboration of evidence relating to the injuries sustained by the victims in this case. He further submitted that the accused/A2 is having arguable points in this appeal and he is having a prima facie case in his favour.

¶24

5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution during trial and the accused/A2 is not having any prima facie case in the appeal. However, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has no serious objection to grant an order of suspension of sentence to the accused/A2.

¶25

6.This Court heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/third party and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record, including the impugned Judgment of the Court below.

¶26

7.Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that there are certain arguable points involved in this Criminal Appeal and they are required to be examined in detail in the main Appeal. I see prima facie case in favour of the petitioner / appellant, for grant of an order of suspension.

¶27

On considerations, ordered as under:-

¶28

(i) Appeal bail granted.

¶29

(ii) Sentence of imprisonment ordered by the trial https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Court alone is suspended, till the disposal of the appeal.

¶30

(iii) There shall be two sureties and they shall execute a bond for Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Court (PCR), Madurai.

¶31

(iv) The accused/A2 shall appear before the said Court on the first working day of every month at 10.30 am., until further orders.

sd/-

04/12/2017

/ TRUE COPY /

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

¶36

¶37

1 THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (PCR), MADURAI.

¶38

2 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THIRUMANGALAM DIVISION, MADURAI DISTRICT.

¶39

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AUSTINPATTI POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT.

¶40

4 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, MADURAI.

¶41

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

¶42

+1. C.C. to M/S.M.GURURAJ Advocate SR.No.35524

¶43

ORDER IN CRL MP(MD) No.10989 of 2017 IN CRL A(MD) No.484 of 2017 Date :04/12/2017

¶44

MKV-CM-VR-SAR 3/4.12.2017/3P-7C

¶45

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

K.Kumar, v. the Deputy Superintendent of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Kumar, v. the Deputy Superintendent of

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

Lakshmi Vs the Inspector of Police

M.Sellampillai, Vs R.Raju

M.Sellampillai, Vs R.Raju

Seenivasan Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

John Susai Navies Mannala @ Vs State Rep by Intelligence

Porchezhian Vs the Inspector of Police