Dismissed

Murugesan@Murugan v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC21 Jun 2017CRL OP(MD)/7659/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Per curiam order on bail petition. Court noted the case involves murder, mutilation, and concealment of body based on circumstantial evidence. Held release not conducive for investigation and dismissed petition. No citation of precedents.

What did the court decide?

The bail petition of the petitioner/A1 is dismissed; he remains in custody as he is not eligible for bail during this stage of investigation.

Murugesan@Murugan Vs the Inspector of Police — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

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

¶2

Wednesday, the Twenty First day of June Two Thousand Seventeen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Dr.Justice G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.7659 of 2017

¶6

MURUGESAN @ MURUGAN ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.I

¶7

STATE REP.BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOTTAR, POLICE STATION, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT

¶8

CRIME NO. 212 OF 2017 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶9

For Petitioner : M/S.V.RAJIV RUFUS Advocate

¶10

For Respondent : MR.R.RAMACHANDRAN, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶11

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

¶12

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶13

The petitioner/1^st accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 01.04.2017, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 397 IPC in Crime No.212 of 2017, on the file of the respondent/Police, seeks bail.

¶14

2.Heard Mr.V.Rajiv Rufus, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and Mr.R.Ramachandran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

¶15

3.The case of the prosecution is that on 25.03.2017, the deceased left her house to meet her friend namely, Kala who was residing at Nagercoil. As she did not return to her house, case was registered against this petitioner/A1 and his wife, based on the complaint given by the husband of the deceased.

¶16

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is no way connected with the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated in this case.

¶17

5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the deceased has gone to the house of A2/Kala, informing her husband. Since the deceased did not turn up, initially complaint was

¶18

given by the husband of the deceased, for women missing and later on investigation, it is found that this petitioner/A1 along with his wife Kala/A2 has brutally murdered the deceased and in order to screen the evidence, they have mutilated her body and took the same to different place and then buried.

¶19

6.Since the case is based on circumstantial evidence, releasing the petitioner at this stage is not conducive for the investigation. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this bail petition is dismissed.

¶20

/ TRUE COPY /

¶21

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)

¶22

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

¶23

Madurai - 625 023.

¶24

¶25

1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

¶26

KOTTAR, POLICE STATION,KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT

¶27

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

¶28

3 THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE,

¶29

NAGERCOIL DISTRICT PRISON, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.

¶30

+1. CC to M/S.V.RAJIV RUFUS Advocate SR.No.24716

¶31

¶32

CSL/RR-BS/SAR-II/22.06.2017: 2P/5C

¶33

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

Murugesan@Murugan v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murugesan@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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Valliappan, Vs Ramnath @ Ayothi Chettiar

Sooriya Vs the Inspector of Police

K.Karuppiah Vs the Inspector of Police

Manikandan, Vs the Inspector of Police

Mohandhas, Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Ganesan Vs the Inspector of Police