Allowed

Seeraj @ Seeraj Ahmed, v. State Rep by

Madras HC18 Sept 2018CRL OP/21825/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras granted bail to the petitioner arrested under IPC theft charges. The court imposed conditions including a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 and periodic reporting to CID, noting the recovery of stolen idols and the petitioner's detention period.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties and weekly reporting to CID for 30 days.

Seeraj @ Seeraj Ahmed, Vs State Rep by — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Tuesday, the Eighteenth day of September Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice R. MAHADEVAN

¶3

and The Hon`ble Mr Justice P.D.AUDIKESAVALU CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.21825 of 2018

¶4

SEERAJ @ SEERAJ AHMED [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AMBUR TALUK POLICE STATION, AMBUR, VELLORE DISTRICT, VELLORE. CR. NO. 395 OF 2017.

¶5

For Petitioner : M/S.D.RAJAGOPAL Advocate

¶6

For Respondent : MR. KRITIKA KAMAL, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶7

PETITION FOR BAIL 439 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶8

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 27.07.2018 in connection with the case in Crime No.395 of 2017 on the file of the respondent police, registered for the alleged offence under Sections 457(2) and 380(2) of IPC, has filed this petition seeking bail.

¶9

2.According to the case of the prosecution, one Natesa Adigalar, who is a priest of Poomalai Murugar Temple, Pallikuppam, Ambur Taluk, Vellore District, lodged a complaint alleging that while he was going to the said temple as usual on 09.10.2017 at 9.00 am for doing pooja, he found that somebody broke open the lock of the said temple and committed theft of three antique panchaloga idols of Gods Murugar, Valli and Deivanai, worth about Rs.95,000/-, which resulted in the registration of the present case.

¶10

3.The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that based on the confession statement of the co-accused, the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 27.07.2018 and he has been languishing in jail for more than 50 days. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ learned counsel also submitted that the idols alleged to have been

¶11

stolen by the petitioner were recovered and were returned to the temple authorities.

¶12

4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent, on instructions, submitted that the stolen idols worth about Rs.95,000/- were recovered and were subsequently, handed over to the temple authorities. She has no serious objection in considering this bail petition in favour of the petitioner.

¶13

5.Heard both sides and perused the records.

¶14

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, however, subject to the following conditions:

¶15

(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, Gudiyatham; and

¶16

(ii)He shall report before the Inspector General of Police, Idol Wing, CID, Thiruchirapalli, twice in a week at 10 AM for a period of 30 days and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation.

¶17

7.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is ordered.

¶18

-sd/18/09/2018 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned

¶19

TRUE COPY

¶20

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

¶21

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, GUDIYATHAM.

¶22

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE VELLORE [FOR INFORMATION]

¶23

3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶24

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

¶25

4 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AMBUR TALUK POLICE STATION, AMBUR, VELLORE DISTRICT, VELLORE.

¶26

5 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, TRICHY. 6 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, IDOL WING, CID, THIRUCHIRAPALLI +1CC to M/S.D.RAJAGOPAL Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR NO.17700 CRL OP.21825/2018 Date :18/09/2018 MK:18/09/2018

¶27

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

Seeraj @ Seeraj Ahmed, v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seeraj @ Seeraj Ahmed, 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

Yuganathan, M/a 42 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its

Gopinath,M/a 33 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its

Srivarshan Battacharyar, Vs the State Rep. by Its

Saranraj @ Vellai, Vs State by

R.Silambu Vs the State Rep by Its

Gopinath Vs Iop Od-Idol Wing CID Ch