Partly allowed

E.S.Angel Mary, v. S.Thomas, Tojo

Madras HC4 Oct 2017CRL MP(MD)/1326/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a petition for anticipatory bail. Bail was denied to the first accused, deemed to have overtly committed acts. Bail was granted to the second accused, a college student, subject to strict conditions including police appearances and filing a bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to second petitioner accused No.2 with bond of Rs. 10,000, sureties, and weekly police reporting; petition dismissed regarding first petitioner accused No.1.

E.S.Angel Mary, Vs S.Thomas, Tojo — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

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

¶2

Thursday, the Twelfth day of October Two Thousand Seventeen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mrs.Justice J.NISHA BANU

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.13685 of 2017

¶6

1 SELVAMANI 2 PERIYASAMY ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED Nos.1&2

¶7

THE STATE REPRESENTED BY ITS THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ASTINPATTI POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT. IN CR.NO.385 OF 2017. ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT

¶8

For Petitioner : M/S.R.GOWRISHANKAR Advocate

¶9

For Respondent : Mr.A.RAMAR, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶10

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

¶11

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶12

The petitioners, who are arrayed as A.1 and A.2 in Crime No.385 of 2017 on the file of the respondent police, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections Sections 147,148,294(b),323,324 and 506(2) I.P.C., r/w Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act and subsequently altered to Sections 147,148,294(b),323,324 and 506(2) I.P.C., r/w Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act & 302 IPC and hence, seek anticipatory bail.

¶13

The case of the prosecution is that on 13.08.2017 at about 08.00p.m., due to previous enmity, Accused No.1 quarrelled with his brother and while the defacto complainant was questioned the same, he was threatened by the Accused No.1. After that, Accused No.1 came with Accused Nos.2 to 14 armed with kambu, iron rod and stones and destroyed his paternal uncle's roof tiles and A.1 to A.3 were attacked the defacto complainant and A.1 kicked his brother and all the accused attacked some persons. Due to the said attack made by A.1 and A.2, one Alagan died. Hence, the case has been registered.

¶14

The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocents and they have been falsely implicated in this case and further, the second accused is a College student and he is studying 1^st year B.E. at M.P.Nachimuthu Engineering College, Erode and hence, he prayed for anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶15

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

¶16

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that

¶17

the investigation is going on.

¶18

Considering the overt act attributed by the first petitioner/Accused No.1, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the first petitioner/Accused No.1. Hence, this petition is dismissed insofar as the first petitioner/Accused No.1 is concerned.

¶19

Considering the facts and circumstances and considering the fact that the second petitioner/Accused No.2 is a college student, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the second petitioner/Accused No.2 with certain conditions. Accordingly, the second petitioner/Accused No.2 is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Thirumangalam, Madurai District and on his 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 Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the second petitioner/Accused No.2 shall appear before the respondent police once in a week i.e., on every Monday at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. The second petitioner/Accused No.2 shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously.

¶20

7.The second petitioner/Accused No.2 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 shall stand automatically dismissed.

¶21

/ TRUE COPY /

¶22

¶23

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUMANGALAM, MADURAI DISTRICT

¶24

2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI DISTRICT

¶25

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

¶26

4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI

¶27

JAM/13.10.17/PM-PN/SAR 1 / 2P-5C

¶28

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

E.S.Angel Mary, v. S.Thomas, Tojo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.S.Angel Mary, v. S.Thomas, Tojo

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

Amirtharaj Vs the Inspector of Police

Haja Mydeen, Vs the Inspector of Police

Mohammed Farook Vs the Inspector of Police

Pandimeena Vs the State through the

The Inspector of Police Vs Dr. Rajendran

P.Nagendran Vs the Inspector of Police