Dismissed

Santhoshkumar, M/a 33 Yrs, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC4 Dec 2018CRL MP/6015/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In CRL.M.P.No.6015 of 2018, the Madras High Court considered a petition seeking suspension of a ten-year rigorous imprisonment sentence pending appeal. The court found the offence grave and the conviction supported by clinching materials, ultimately refusing to suspend the sentence. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The petition to suspend the sentence for rigorous imprisonment of ten years is dismissed.

Santhoshkumar, M/a 33 Yrs, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Tuesday, the Fourth day of December Two Thousand Eighteen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice V. PARTHIBAN

¶6

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.6015 of 2018

¶7

in CRL.A.NO.328 of 2017

¶8

SANTHOSHKUMAR [ PETITIONER / APPELLANT ]

¶9

¶10

THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

¶11

PERUNDURAI POLICE STATION, ERODE DISTRICT CRIME NO.389 OF 2013.

¶12

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the Memorandum of Grounds in CRL.A.No.328 of 2017 on the file of the High Court, the High Court will be pleased to suspend the sentence of imprisonment imposed in the Judgment dated 14.06.2017 made in S.C.No.126 of 2015 on the file of the Learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Perundurai and enlarge the petitioner on bail pending disposal of the above C.A.No.328 of 2017 [CRL.M.P.No.6015 of 2018]

¶13

Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the Memorandum of Grounds in Crl.A.No.328 of 2017 on the file of the High Court and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.N.MANOKARAN, Advocate for the petitioner the court made the following order:-

¶14

The appellant is A2 in Sessions Case No.126 of 2015, on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Perundhurai, Erode District. By order dated 14.06.2017, the trial Court has convicted him for offences under Sections 120B, 460 and 394 r/w 397 of the Indian Penal Code. The maximum punishment imposed upon the petitioner is Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred the above appeal. Pending appeal, he seeks for suspension of sentence.

¶15

2.Heard, Mr.N.Manokaran, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.V.Saradhadevi, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State and I have also perused the records carefully.

¶16

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

¶17

3.The learned Government Advocate would submit that the petitioner along with A1 have trespassed into the house of the victim; brutally attacked her with knife, sickle and other deadly weapons and snatched away gold jewels from her. Due to the said attack, the victim sustained severe injuries. The victim also wrote the names of the accused on the wall. She would further submit that there are clinching materials in support of the prosecution case and on the basis of the said materials, the lower Court has passed the impugned order, imposing the maximum punishment of ten years Rigorous Imprisonment on the petitioner/accused. She would also submit that there are enough materials to sustain the charge framed against the petitioner and the trial Court has rightly convicted the petitioner and as such, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, she prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶18

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is aged 32 years and he has been falsely implicated in this case. There are no overt act attributed against the petitioner. The petitioner is languishing in jail for the past 2 ½ years and he has no bad antecedents. Accordingly, the learned counsel prays for suspending the sentence imposed on the petitioner.

¶19

5.Considering the said submission made by the learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the prosecution and the gravity of offence, this Court is not inclined to suspend the sentence. Even otherwise, there is no merit in this petition and therefore, this petition is dismissed for the present.

¶20

-sd/04/12/2018

¶21

This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned

¶22

TRUE COPY

¶23

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

¶24

¶25

1 THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE PERUNDURAI, ERODE DISTRICT

¶26

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶27

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

¶28

3 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, COIMBATORE

¶29

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERUNDURAI POLICE STATION, ERODE DISTRICT

¶30

C.C. to M/S.N.MANOKARAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges

¶31

Order
in
CRL M.P.No.6015 of 2018
in
CRL.A.NO.328 of 2017
Date :04/12/2018
From 7.2.2001 the Registry is issuing certified
copies of the BAIL/Anti.BAIL Orders in this format
cm 07/12/2018

¶32

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

Santhoshkumar, M/a 33 Yrs, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santhoshkumar, M/a 33 Yrs, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

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

K.Perumal, M/a 38 Years, Vs S.Shakiladevi, F/a 35 Years

P.M. Anandan, Vs Mr. Atulya Misra I.A.S.

P.Rajeshkumar, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Jayalakshmi, Age 60 Yrs Vs the Sub-Divisional Magistrate/

Kumar @ Uthirakumar, Vs State Rep by

T.K.Deepak, Aged 32 Yrs, Vs D.Mohana Sundaram