Disposed

Aravind, Aged 23 Yrs v. State by

Madras HC10 May 2017CRL OP/9191/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed accuseds facing charges under the SC/ST (POA) Act and IPC to surrender within ten days. It ordered the Special Judge to consider the bail application on merits and pass an order on the day of surrender.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioners to surrender within ten days; directed Special Judge to consider bail application on merits and pass order on day of surrender.

Aravind, Aged 23 Yrs Vs State by — Caste Atrocities | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 10.05.2017
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH.J
Crl.O.P. No.9191 of 2017
1.Aravind
2.Sivakumar
3.P.Vignesh
4.Thavamani
5.Sarumathi
6.Selvam
7.Chennammal
8.Santhosh
9.Srinivasan
10.Gopi
11.Perumal
12.Vignesh .. Petitioners/ Accuseds
Vs.
State by the Sub-Inspector of Police,
Kottappatti Police Station,
Dharmapuri District.
Crime No.74/2017 .. Respondent/Complainant

¶3

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to direct the Principal District and Sessions Judge, (Special Judge for SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act), Dharmapuri to consider and dispose of the bail application of the petitioners on merits in connection with the case in Crime NO.74 of 2017 on the file of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kottappatti Police Station, Dharmapuri District on the same date of their surrender.

¶4

For Petitioners : Mr.C.Munusamy For Respondent :Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz

¶5

The petitioners seek for a direction to the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, (Special Judge for SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act), Dharmapuri to consider the bail petition filed by the petitioners on bail, on the same day in the event of their surrender and filing bail application in Cr.No.74 of 2017 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.

¶6

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

¶7

2.The petitioners are accused for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 324 IPC and Section 3(1)(r) r/w 3 (2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶8

Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the materials available on record.

¶9

Considering the nature of offences alleged against the petitioners, the fact that anticipatory bail cannot be granted in respect of offences punishable under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and that taking into custody of the petitioners pending consideration of their bail application could cause them irreparable hardship, this Court considers it appropriate to direct petitioners to surrender within a period of ten days from today. The learned learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, (Special Judge for SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act), Dharmapuri, is also directed to consider the bail application of the petitioners on merits and pass appropriate order on the same day of their surrender, if the offences mentioned in this order is present in that petitions. 5.The petition is ordered accordingly. -s/dAssistant Registrar(VO) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar sms/sli To 1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kottappatti Police Station, Dharmapuri District. 2.The Government Advocate (Crl.side), High Court, Madras – 600 104. 3.The Principal District and Sessions Judge (Special Judge for SC &ST (Prevention of Arocities Act) Dharmapuri +1 cc to M/s.C.Munusamy Advocate sr 37082/17 Crl.O.P. No.9191 of 2017 sj(co) aa15/05/2017

¶10

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

Aravind, Aged 23 Yrs v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aravind, Aged 23 Yrs v. State by

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

Vedanayaki Vs the Inspector of Police

M/S.J.K.Steel Corporation Vs M/S.Apple Rolling Mills Ltd.

N.Munusamy Vs the Superintendent of Police

Jayapal, M/30 Years Vs State Rep.by

S.Sreekanth, Vs Jayakumar

Surendira Babu, Aged 35 Yrs Vs the Station House Officer