Allowed

Senthil Murugan v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC9 Mar 2017CRL OP(MD)/2580/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench granted bail to the petitioner accused under IPC, POCSO, and SC/ST acts. The petitioner was in custody over 20 days. Bail ordered subject to bond, residence restriction, and non-tampering conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered released on bail with bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties, subject to conditions of residence, reporting, and non-tampering.

Senthil Murugan Vs the Inspector of Police — Child Custody and Guardianship | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

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

¶2

Thursday, the Ninth day of March Two Thousand Seventeen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Dr.Justice G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.2580 of 2017

¶6

SENTHIL MURUGAN ... PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED

¶7

Vs STATE REP. BY

¶8

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SIVAGANGAI TALUK POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI, (CRIME NO.54/2017) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶9

For Petitioner : M/S.D.RAMESH KUMAR Advocate

¶10

For Respondent : M/S.K.V.RAJARAJAN Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶11

PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

¶12

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶13

The petitioner / sole accused, who was arrested on 17.02.2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 341 of I.P.C., and Sections 11(1) and 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 3 (1)(w)(ii) of SC/ST Act, in Crime No.54 of 2017 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶14

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner has hold the school bag of the victim girl, aged 15 years and studying 10^th standard and harassed her sexually using filthy language. Incidentally the victim girl belongs to Scheduled Caste community and therefore offences under SC/ST Act along with POCSO Act has been clamped against the petitioner.

¶15

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and due to previous enmity he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the petitioner is in judicial custody for more than 20 days.

¶16

4.The learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) submitted that the investigation is still pending and taking note of the gravity of the crime, the petitioner, if released on bail, there may be recurrence of the incident.

¶17

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

¶18

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and that

¶19

the petitioner has been in custody for more than 20 days, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to the following conditions:

¶20

(i)the petitioner shall execute 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 Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Sivagangai;

¶21

(ii)the petitioner is directed to stay at Virudhunagar and appear before the Town Police Station daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders;

¶22

(iii)the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

¶23

(iv) the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

¶24

(v)on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560].

sd/-

09/03/2017

/ TRUE COPY /

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

¶29

TO 1.THE SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK MAHILA COURT, SIVAGANGAI.

¶30

2.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL PRISON, MADURAI.

¶31

3.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SIVAGANGAI TALUK POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI.

¶32

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

¶33

+1. CC to M/S.D.RAMESH KUMAR Advocate SR.No.13607

¶34

PJL

¶35

AE/SV MMS/SAR3/09.03.2017/2P/6C

¶36

ORDER

¶37

¶38

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

¶39

CRL OP(MD) No.2580 of 2017 Date :09/03/2017

Senthil Murugan v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Senthil Murugan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Mahamani Vs the Inspector of Police

Perumalsamy, Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Dinesh Bharathi Vs the Inspector of Police

Thiyagarajan, Vs State through the

Alagar Vs the Inspector of Police

Sankaran @ Christopher Vs the Inspector of Police