Allowed

Arumugam @ Kerattai, Vs

Madras HC13 Mar 2017CRL OP(MD)/2611/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench granted bail to the sole accused in a compoundable and non-compoundable offence case involving cheating, molestation, and criminal intimidation. The court held that due to the pendency of a civil dispute and delay, detention was not necessary for investigation.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to execution of a bond for Rs.10,000/- with two sureties, daily appearance before the Judicial Magistrate, and cooperation with investigation.

Arumugam @ Kerattai, Vs — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

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

¶2

Monday, the Thirteenth day of March Two Thousand Seventeen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Dr.Justice G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.2611 of 2017

¶6

ARUMUGAM @ KERATTAI ... PETITIONER /SOLE ACCUSED

¶7

STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI,SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT. (CRIME NO.2 OF 2017) ... RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT

¶8

For Petitioner : M/S.N.ANANDA KUMAR Advocate

¶9

For Respondent :Mr.K.V.RAJARAJAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶10

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

¶11

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶12

The petitioner/sole accused, was arrested on 18.02.2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 376 and 506(i) of I.P.C., in Crime No.2 of 2017 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a false complaint of rape has been lodged against the petitioner alleging that 7 months prior to the complaint, the petitioner had forcibly intercourse with the de-facto complainant.

¶14

According to the petitioner, it is fall out of a civil dispute pending between the mother of the de-facto complainant and the wife of the petitioner/accused. The age of the victim lady is 32 years and the petitioner is 54 years.

¶15

Considering the pendency of civil dispute between both the family and delay in lodging the complaint, this Court is of the opinion that the detention of the petitioner is not necessary for investigation, 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:

¶16

(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 the learned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivagangai.

¶17

(ii) the petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivagangai daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders and the petitioner is directed to co-operate with the investigation.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

(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/-

13/03/2017

/ TRUE COPY /

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

¶25

¶26

1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II, SIVAGANGAI.

¶27

2.DO-THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SIVAGANGAI.

¶28

3.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI,SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT.

¶29

4.THE SUPERINTENT,CENTRAL PRISON, MADURAI.

¶30

5.ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶31

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶32

+1. CC to M/S.N.ANANDA KUMAR Advocate SR.No.14255

¶33

ORDER

¶34

¶35

CRL OP(MD) No.2611 of 2017 Date :13/03/2017 MS/SV.MMS/13.03.2017/2P.7C

¶36

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

Arumugam @ Kerattai, Vs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arumugam @ Kerattai, Vs

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

Esakki Raja Vs the Inspector of Police

Jothi Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Mr.P.Rajendran Vs R.a.Subramanian

R.Jayaraman, Vs the State Rep by

Thamilarasan, Vs State Rep. by

O.B.Maheswari Vs C.Elavarasi