Allowed

Manoharan, M/27 Years v. State Rep by

Madras HC7 Aug 2018CRL OP/19509/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the petitioner, an accused in a theft case, after nearly 60 days of judicial custody. The court framed conditions including a bond with sureties and periodic police reporting, balancing the investigation needs against the petitioner's right to liberty.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to executing a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties and reporting to police twice a week for 30 days.

Manoharan, M/27 Years Vs State Rep by — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Tuesday, the Seventh day of August Two Thousand Eighteen

¶4

PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice R.MAHADEVAN

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice P.D.AUDIKESAVALU CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.19509 of 2018

¶6

MANOHARAN, [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs

¶7

STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUTHUPETTAI POLICE STATION, THIRUVARUR DISTRICT. CR.NO.174 OF 2018.

¶8

For Petitioner : M/S.SWAMI SUBRAMANIAN Advocate

¶9

For Respondent : MR. C.IYYAPPARAJ, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶10

PETITION FOR BAIL 439 Cr.P.C.

¶11

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶12

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 08.06.2018 in connection with the case in Crime No.174 of 2018 on the file of the respondent police, registered for the alleged offence under Section 380 IPC, has filed this petition seeking bail.

¶13

2.It is the case of the prosecution that as per the statement given by the priest of a temple at Muthupettai, Thiruvarur District, the Executive Officer of the said temple lodged a complaint with regard to the theft of Thirumangalayam from the said temple on 18.05.2018 at about 9.45 am, based on which, the present case was registered and the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 08.06.2018.

¶14

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that based on the statement given by the priest of the said temple, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. According to him, the petitioner is innocent and he has nothing to do with the alleged offence. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has been in judicial custody nearly for 60 days, as on today and hence, he may be considered for grant of bail.

¶15

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

¶16

4.On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that some of the accused are still in abscondence and the investigation is yet to be completed.

¶17

5.Heard both sides and perused the records.

¶18

6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and further taking note of the period of incarceration undergoing by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, of course, subject to the following conditions:

¶19

(i)The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees One Lakh Only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruthuraipoondi, Thiruvarur District; and

¶20

(ii)He shall report before the respondent police twice a week for a period of 30 days and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation.

¶21

7.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is ordered. -sd/07/08/2018

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUTHURAIPOONDI, THIRUVARUR DISTRICT. 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE THIRUVARUR DISTRICT. [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, TIRUCHIRAPALLI. 4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶26

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

¶27

5 STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUTHUPETTAI POLICE STATION, THIRUVARUR DISTRICT.

¶28

+1 CC to M/S.SWAMI SUBRAMANIAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges-Sr.14666

¶29

ths : 09.08.2018

¶30

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

Manoharan, M/27 Years v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoharan, M/27 Years v. State Rep by

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

N.Arumugam, Vs State Rep.by

Sakthivel, M/a 36 Yrs, Vs the Inspector of Police

Bijayshree Resources Ltd. Vs Subasree Real Estates

M.Kavitha, Aged 52 Years Vs State Rep. by

R.Eswaran, Aged 55 Years, Vs State Rep. by

K.T.Ponnusamy, M/45 Vs State Rep by Its