Allowed

Ponnambalam @ Kumar v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC12 Sept 2017CRL MP(MD)/8226/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application for suspension of sentence pending appeal, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court found substantial grounds in the appeal and evidence of an eye witness who contradicted the prosecution. Considering the applicant's two-year incarceration, including by default of first appeal, and two minor children, the Court granted suspension of the sentence and released him on bail with condit

What did the court decide?

Sentence suspended pending disposal of the criminal appeal; applicant released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.10,000/- and two sureties for a like sum.

Ponnambalam @ Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

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

¶2

Tuesday, the Twelfth day of September Two Thousand Seventeen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Honble Mr.Justice M.M.SUNDRESH** and **The Honble Mr.Justice N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶5

CRL MP(MD) No.8226 of 2017 IN CRL A(MD) No.348 of 2015

¶6

PONNAMBALAM @ KUMAR

¶7

NOW HE IS IN CENTRAL JAIL, TRICHY AND HIS C.P.NO.21120, TRICHY. ... PETITIONER/APPELLANT

¶8

¶9

THE STATE REP.BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SRIRANGAM (L&O) POLICE STATION, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶10

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 by the Judgment dated 23.07.2015 passed in S.C.No.95 of 2013 on the file of the Learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Trichy and enlarge the petitioner on bail, pending disposal of the Criminal Appeal.

¶11

Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.E.SOMASUNDARAM, Advocate for the petitioner and of MR.R.RAMACHANDRAN, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent the court made the following order:-

¶12

(Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH.J., )

¶13

This petition has been filed praying to suspend the sentence imposed against the petitioner IN S.C.No.95 of 2013, dated 23.7.2013, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tiruchirappalli and to enlarge the Petitioner on bail, pending disposal of the Criminal Appeal.

¶14

2.The Petitioner is arrayed as an accused in S.C.No.95 of 2013 for the alleged offence under Section 302 IPC. The occurrence took place on 15.2.2012. The deceased was none other than the wife of the Petitioner.

¶15

3.The case of the prosecution is that the Petitioner poured kerosene on the deceased and committed the offence. Originally, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ case was registered under Section 307 IPC. The deceased died after two months. Accordingly, then the case was altered into one under

¶16

Section 302 IPC. The trial Court convicted the Petitioner on 23.07.2015. Now the Petitioner is under incarceration for more than two years.

¶17

4.The learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that even the eye-witness P.W.2 has only stated that it is the deceased, who poured kerosene on herself. There is no material to hold that the Petitioner has committed the offence. The Petitioner is in jail for more than two years. He is having two minor children.

¶18

5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the trial Court has convicted the Petitioner by taking into consideration the evidence of P.W.1. The deceased has also given a statement implicating the Petitioner in the offence. Therefore, this Petition will have to be dismissed.

¶19

6.We find that there are substantial grounds raised in the appeal. The Petitioner has been under incarceration for more than two years. It appears that there are two minor children born out of their wedlock.

¶20

7.Considering the above facts and taking note of the fact that there are some arguable points are involved in this criminal appeal and considering the period of incarceration undergone by the Petitioner, coupled with the evidance of PW2 we are inclined to grant suspension of the sentence.

¶21

In fine, this petition is ordered and the sentence imposed against the petitioner in S.C.No.95 of 2013 by the learned Sessions Judge of Mahila Court, Tiruchirappalli alone is suspended till the disposal of Criminal Appeal No.348 of 2015 and the petitioner will be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- and two sureties each for a like-sum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tiruchirappalli and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the said Court on the first working day of every English Calendar month at 10.30 a.m until further orders.

sd/-

12/09/2017

/ TRUE COPY /

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

¶26

¶27

1 THE SESSIONS JUDGE, MAHILA COURT, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI.

¶28

2 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL JAIL, TRICHY.

¶29

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

¶30

SRIRANGAM (L&O) POLICE STATION, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI DISTRICT. 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶31

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. C.C. to M/S.E.SOMASUNDARAM Advocate SR.No.30527

¶32

ORDER IN

¶33

CRL MP(MD) No.8226 of 2017 IN CRL A(MD) No.348 of 2015

¶34

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

¶35

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Date :12/09/2017

¶36

MKV-PM-PN-SAR 1/15.09.2017/2P-6C

Ponnambalam @ Kumar v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ponnambalam @ Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thiraviyapandi Vs N. Anbukrishnan

Palani Vs the Inspector of Police

Syed Abdul Rahman Vs the Inspector of Police

K.Sangeetha Vs the Superintend of Police

A.Queence Mary Vs the Superintendent of Police

Vinoth Kumar, Vs the Superintendent of Police