Dismissed

Pushparaj, v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Madras HC5 Apr 2017CRL OP(MD)/3309/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a bail petition filed by an accused who had been absconding for over six years. Noting the ongoing commitment proceedings and the chance of release to the public, the Court declined bail but directed the courts to expedite the trial to a period of three months.

What did the court decide?

The criminal original petition for bail is dismissed. The committing Court and Court of Session are directed to expedite the trial and dispose of the case within three months.

Pushparaj, Vs the Sub Inspector of Police — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Fifth day of April Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT

¶2

The Hon`ble Dr.Justice G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶3

CRL OP(MD) No.3309 of 2017

¶4

PUSHPARAJ ... PETITIONER/ ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN

¶5

Vs STATE REP.BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVENKADAM POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. (CRIME NO.66 OF 2010) ... RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT

¶6

For Petitioner : M/S.R.PON KARTHIKEYAN, Advocate

¶7

For Respondent : M/S.K.V.RAJARAJAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervenor : M/S.V.KATHIRVELU, Senior Counsel

¶8

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

¶9

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶10

The petitioner/accused, was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 10.03.2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 109, 342 and 302 of I.P.C., in Crime No.66 of 2010 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶11

This petition for bail by one of the accused who was absconding for more than six years and thereafter been secured on execution of Non-Bailable Warrant.

¶12

The facts of the case has a checkered history, wherein for an offence committed in the year 2011, nearly 15 persons were arrayed as accused initially and after investigation, 10 of them were deleted and final report was filed against five accused. Aggrieved by that, the victim has filed a protest petition and the private complaint has been taken on file, wherein the present petitioner was arrayed as A4. Since he was absconding, the case against the other accused was split up and committed in P.R.C.No.33 of 2011.

¶13

This Court called for the report from the Magistrate to know the current status of the case for considering the bail application, the learned Magistrate had submitted in his report that three accused were absconding and were secured on execution of NonBailable Warrant and the process of committing the case to the Court https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of Session is under way. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case against this petitioner has also been committed which is subject to verification. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the committal Court as well as the Court of Session shall expedite the process as early as possible and dispose of the case within a period of three months.

¶15

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶16

sd/-

¶17

05/04/2017

¶18

/ TRUE COPY /

¶19

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)

¶20

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

¶21

Madurai - 625 023.

¶22

¶23

1.THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVENKADAM POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.

¶24

2.THE SUPERINTENT,CENTRAL PRISON,PALAYANKOTTAI.

¶25

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

¶26

+1. CC to M/S.R.PON KARTHIKEYAN Advocate SR.No.19600 +1. CC to M/S.K.PRABHU, Advocate SR.No.19707

¶27

ORDER

¶28

¶29

CRL OP(MD) No.3309 of 2017

¶30

Date :05/04/2017

¶31

MS/PM.PN/SAR.3/12.04.2017/2P.6C

¶32

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

Pushparaj, v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushparaj, v. the Sub 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

Balaiya Vs Shanmuga Sundari

Kutti Ajith @ Ajith @ Vs Inspector of Police

P.Vivek Rao Vs the Inspector of Police

P.Muthusamy Vs P.Kandasamy

Natarajan Vs the Inspector of Police

Thavamuthu Vs the Inspector of Police