Allowed

Ayyavuthevar @ Kumarthevar v. the State Thro Sub Inspector

Madras HC27 Apr 2017CRL OP(MD)/4545/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench granted anticipatory bail to petitioners facing charges under Sections 406, 420, 392, and 506 IPC. The Court cited police lethargy in securing accused for interrogation despite previous directions. Bail was released on bond with conditions including daily police appearance.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail upon executing a bond of Rs. 10,000 each with two sureties, ordered to appear before police daily at 10.30 a.m. for four weeks, and failing appearance within 15 days, the

Ayyavuthevar @ Kumarthevar Vs the State Thro Sub Inspector — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

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

¶2

Thursday, the Twenty Seventh day of April Two Thousand Seventeen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice A.M.BASHEER AHAMED

¶5

CRL OP(MD) Nos.4545 and 4546 of 2017

¶6

AYYAVUTHEVAR @ KUMARTHEVAR ... PETITIONER / A1

¶7

in Crl.OP.(MD).No.4545/2017

¶8

1 POTHUMANI @ POTHUNKANI

¶9

2 RANI @ INDHURANI

¶10

3 PETHU @ PETHUMUNIYANDI

¶11

4 PANDI ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED 2 to 4 & 8 in Crl.OP.(MD).No.4546/2017

¶12

¶13

THE STATE THRO SUB INSPECTOR

¶14

OF POLICE, SAPTUR POLICE STATION,

¶15

IN CRIME NO.6 OF 2017 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT

¶16

in both the petitions

¶17

For Petitioner : M/S.E.R.GURUBALACHANDRAN Advocate in both the petitions

¶18

For Respondent : Mr.P.Kandasamy, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) in both the petitions

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶21

The petitioners, who are arrayed as A-1 to A-4 and A-8, in Crime No.6 of 2017 on the file of the respondent police, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 392 and 506(ii) of I.P.C., and hence, seek anticipatory bail.

¶22

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) for the respondent/State.

¶23

3.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent on instructions submitted that there are totally 9 named https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ accused and 9 others. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4545 of 2017 is the first accused. The petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4546 of

¶24

2017 are the accused Nos.2 to 4 and 8 respectively. The earlier Anticipatory Bail application moved by the petitioners in Crl.O.P. (MD)No.2919 of 2017 was dismissed by this Court, as per the order dated 16.03.2017. The present application is the third Anticipatory Bail application filed by the petitioners herein. In the earlier order, this Court has directed the respondent to secure the accused to their custody for custodial interrogation if necessary in this case. Even after the dismissal of the earlier Anticipatory Bail applications, the respondent police has not taken any steps to secure the accused who are petitioners herein, though this Court has directed. He further states that the investigation is still pending. The conduct of the respondent shows that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary in this case.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the respondent police has not taken any steps to progress the investigation in this case and there is no previous cases against the first accused as alleged by the respondent and the petitioners are prepared to co-operate with the investigation, whenever they require and the petitioners are always available in their village and they are not hiding anywhere else.

¶26

The learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) also states that even after the direction given by this Court to the respondent police, the respondent police has not taken any steps to secure the petitioners for custody. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) also states that the respondent police is lethargic in securing the petitioners herein, though the petitioners are available in the village.

¶27

The learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) has also not chosen to file the list of the 28 previous cases in respect of the first accused, though this Court has directed to file it.

¶28

7.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No, Peraiyur, and on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/(Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioners shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously.

¶29

8.The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai, is directed to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ initiate the action against the concerned Inspector of Police for not securing the accused, though this Court has dismissed the

¶30

earlier Anticipatory Bail application and directed the respondent police to secure the petitioners herein for custodial interrogation. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai is also directed to send the action taken report to the Registry.

¶31

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)

¶32

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

¶33

Madurai - 625 023.

¶34

¶35

1 THE DISTRICT MUNSIF CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PERAIYUR

¶36

2 -do-thro THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE MADURAI DISTRICT

¶37

3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SAPTUR POLICE STATION

¶38

4 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE MADURAI

¶39

5 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI

¶40

+4. CC to M/S.E.R.GURUBALACHANDRAN Advocate SR.No.21448,21449

¶41

SM:KKR:SAR 4;27/04/2017:3p/10c

¶42

ORDER

¶43

¶44

CRL OP(MD) Nos.4545 & 4546 of 2017 Date :27/04/2017

¶45

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

Ayyavuthevar @ Kumarthevar v. the State Thro Sub Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayyavuthevar @ Kumarthevar v. the State Thro Sub Inspector

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

Vijayakumar Vs Krishnan

Saravanan Vs the Inspector of Police

Vinora Vs D. Suresh

Rajkumar Vs the Inspector of Police

A. Rajendran Vs S. Muthusamy

A. Rajendran Vs S. Muthusamy