Allowed

Shanmugavel v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC1 Aug 2018CRL MP(MD)/6046/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant sought suspension of seven-year rigorous imprisonment sentence pending appeal. Court granted suspension till August 29, 2018, conditioned on executing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and appearing monthly at the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of sentence granted till August 29, 2018. Petitioner to execute bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and appear at trial court every month.

Shanmugavel Vs the Inspector of Police — Corruption | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

Wednesday, the First day of August Two Thousand Eighteen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mrs.Justice R.THARANI

¶6

CRL MP(MD) No.6046 of 2018 IN CRL A(MD) No.339 of 2018

¶7

SHANMUGAVEL

¶8

... PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/ ACCUSED NO.2

¶9

¶10

STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MUTHUKULATHUR CIRCLE, MUTHUKULATHUR POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT. CRIME NO.121/2011 ... RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT

¶11

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the petition filed therewith the High Court may be pleased to suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioner/appellant namely Shanmugavel, S/o. Madasamy by the Learned Principal District and Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram by its Judgement in Spl.S.C.No.38/2013 dated 11/07/2018 and enlarge him on bail pending disposal of the above Crl.A.

¶12

Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.M.JEGADEESH PANDIAN, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr.K.SUYAMBULINGA BHARATHI, Government Advocate on behalf of the Respondent, While admitting the CRL.A, the court made the following order:-

¶13

Heard Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent.

¶14

This petition is filed to suspend the sentence imposed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram in Special S.C.No.38 of 2013, dated 11.07.2018.

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The case against the petitioner is that the petitioner and others due to previous enmity on 05.09.2011 at about 6.30 p.m. near

¶16

¶17

Mudhukulathur Gandhi Statute, humiliated the defacto complainant by using filthy language and the petitioner imflicated injury on the stomach and shoulder and left side cheek of the defacto complainant with sickle. The charge sheet was filed under Sections 294 (b), 324, 326, 307 of IPC r/w 3 (1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act. The petitioner was convicted under Section 325 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.

¶18

On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that there is motive between the petitioner and the defacto complainant and that A.1 borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/- from the defacto complainant/P.W.5 and repaid Rs.20,000/- and when P.W.5 demanded the balance amount there was some quarrel between P.W.5 and A.1. It is stated that in the AIR it is stated that P.W.5 was attacked by two known and two unknown persons and that two unknown persons were not impleaded as accused in the case and there are arguable points to consider in the appeal and prayed to grant suspension of sentence till the completion of the appeal.

¶19

On the side of the respondent, it is stated that the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses and marked as 14 documents. P.W.5 is a victim and she has deposed regarding the occurrence wherein it is stated that A1 was caught hold of P.W.5 and A.2 who is the prime accused caused injuries to him. The evidence of P.W.5 is co-related by the evidence of P.W.3 who is the Doctor and he objected to release the petitioner on suspension of sentence.

¶20

Records perused. The petitioner is in custody from 11.07.2018 onwards. It is stated that the petitioner is having some arguable points for consideration and the disposal of the appeal will take some time.

¶21

In this circumstances, this Court is inclined to grant suspension of sentence till 29.08.2018, on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties, of whom, one should be a blood relative,

¶22

each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Muthukulathur, Ramanathapuram district and on further condition that:

¶23

(i) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Trial Judge may obtain a copy of their Aadhar Card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity.

¶24

(ii) the petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on the first working day of every English https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Calendar month at 10.30 a.m., until the disposal of the appeal and if he is not able to appear

¶25

¶26

before the Trial Court on any day, he shall make arrangements to file an application under Section 317 Cr.P.C., and shall appear before the Trial Court on any other day in lieu of the date of his absence, as directed by the Trial Court.

¶27

Post after four weeks 'for hearing main appeal'.

¶28

sd/01/08/2018 / TRUE COPY /

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANATHAPURAM. 2. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MUTHUKULATHUR, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT. 3. DO-THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT,CENTRAL PRISON, MADURAI. 5. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MUTHUKULATHUR CIRCLE, MUTHUKULATHUR POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT. 6. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. C.C. to Mr.M.JEGADEESH PANDIAN Advocate SR.No.15020 ORDER IN CRL MP(MD) No.6046 of 2018 IN CRL A(MD) No.339 of 2018 Date :01/08/2018 MS/PN/SAR-1/06.08.2018/3P.8C

¶32

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

Shanmugavel v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanmugavel 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. Krishnan Vs P. Chandrasekar

R. Malathi Vs Sree Gokulam Chits & Finance

Justin Raj Vs the Inspector of Police

S.R. Jangid,I.P.S., Vs B. Srinivasan

Asaithambi Vs the Inspector of Police

Vijay Vs the Inspector of Police