Allowed

Pachiyappan, 61 Yrs, v. Inspector of Police

Madras HC19 Apr 2017CRL OP/7154/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras granted anticipatory bail to three petitioners accused of illegally transporting sand using a JCB. The court ordered release upon arrear or appearance, subject to bond, deposit, and daily reporting for two weeks, finding no need for custodial interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail upon arrest/appearance, subject to deposit of Rs. 2,500, bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, and daily reporting for two weeks.

Pachiyappan, 61 Yrs, Vs Inspector of Police — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Wednesday, the Nineteenth day of April Two Thousand Seventeen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice S. BASKARAN

¶6

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.7154 of 2017

¶7

1 PACHIYAPPAN 2 SUGUMAR 3 PRAKASH

¶8

[ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED ]

¶9

¶10

INSPECTOR OF POLICE , [ RESPONDENT ] THAKKOALAM POLICE STATION, VELLORE DISTICT.

¶11

CR.NO. 71 OF 2017.

¶12

For Petitioner : M/S.M.HARIBABU Advocate

¶13

For Respondent : MR. R.SEKAR, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶14

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

¶15

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶16

The petitioner apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 430 & 379 of IPC in Crime No.71 of 2017 on the file of the respondent police, seek the relief of anticipatory bail.

¶17

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners have transported sand illegally by using JCB. Hence, a case had been registered.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are an innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that only the JCB had been recovered from the petitioners.

¶19

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the first accused had already been remanded and the petitioners are A2 to A4 and they were having three previous cases to their credit.

¶20

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and there is no need for custodial interrogation in this case, this Court is inclined to entertain this petition.

¶21

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Magistrate concerned within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, subject to the following conditions :-

¶22

(i) The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand and Five hundred only) to the credit of crime No.71 of 2017 on the file of the respondent-police and

¶23

(ii) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam or to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest and

¶24

(iii) The petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation.

¶25

-sd/-

¶26

19/04/2017

¶27

This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned

¶28

TRUE COPY

¶29

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104. TO

¶30

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ARAKKONAM

¶31

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE VELLORE(FOR INFORMATION)

¶32

3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶33

4 INSPECTOR OF POLICE , THAKKOALAM POLICE STATION, VELLORE DISTICT.

¶34

CC to M/S.M.HARIBABU Advocate on payment of necessary charges Sr.7181

¶35

CRL OP.7154/2017 Date :19/04/2017 rvr 21/04/2017

Pachiyappan, 61 Yrs, v. Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pachiyappan, 61 Yrs, v. 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

M.Karthik, M/28 Years Vs State Represented by

D.R.K.Kalyanram, Aged 40 Years Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

Thirumalai Vasan, Aged 35 Yrs, Vs the State Rep. by Its

R.Saravanakumar, Male Vs the Commissione of Police

D.Murugavel, (M/a 45 Yrs) Vs State Rep by

C.Srinivasan, Aged 40 Yrs, Vs the Inspector of Police