Allowed

Nagarathinam, v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC25 Jan 2018CRL OP(MD)/1272/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to three accused persons in a criminal case involving assault and criminal intimidation. The court ordered their release on bail execution within 15 days, subject to reporting daily, non-interference with evidence, and non-attendance in court.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners ordered to execute bond for Rs.25,000 with two sureties, report daily for three weeks, and not tamper with evidence or abscond.

Nagarathinam, Vs the Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

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

¶2

Thursday, the Twenty Fifth day of January Two Thousand Eighteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.PONGIAPPAN

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.1272 of 2018

¶6

1 NAGARATHINAM

¶7

2 VISHNU PERUMAL

¶8

3 RAMPRASATH ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED Nos.1 to 3

¶9

¶10

THE STATE REPRESENTED BY

¶11

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVADANAI POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

(CR.NO.14/2018) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT

¶13

For Petitioners : Mr.G.THALAIMUTHARASU Advocate

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.A.ROBINSON, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶15

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.

¶16

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶17

The petitioners/A1 to A3, who apprend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences under Sections 294 (b), 324 and 506(ii) of IPC., in Crime No.14 of 2018, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶18

The case of the prosecution is that on 19.01.2018, due to previous enmity, a wordy quarrel arose between the petitioners and the defacto complainant, due to which the petitioners assaulted the defacto complainant and caused injuries. Hence, the case has been registered against the petitioners for the above incident.

¶19

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they are no way connected with the alleged occurrence. He further submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays for anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶20

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for the respondent on instructions, would submit that the injured has been discharged from the hospital. He further submitted that the

¶21

investigation is still pending.

¶22

The submissions made by the learned counsel on either side are considered. According to the prosecution, the person, who sustained injury during the time of alleged occurrence was discharged from the hospital after completing treatment. Except Section 506 (ii) IPC, all the other petition mentioned offences are bailable in nature. Accordingly, custodial interrogation is not necessary for completing the investigation. Therefore, considering the above facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai, on condition that each of the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent Police or to the Police Officer, who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

¶23

(i) the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m for a period of three weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

¶24

(ii) the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

¶25

(iii) the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

¶26

(iv) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners shall stand automatically cancelled and the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].

¶27

sd/25/01/2018

¶28

/ TRUE COPY /

¶29

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶30

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

¶31

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUVADANAI, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶32

2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVADANAI POLICE STATION,

¶33

RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT. 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI

¶34

+1. CC to MR.G.THALAIMUTHARASU Advocate SR.No.1607 JAM/01/02/2018/PM-PN/ SAR 4 / 3P-6C

¶35

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.1272 of 2018 Date :25/01/2018

¶36

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

Nagarathinam, v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagarathinam, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Samuvel Thangaraj Vs the Inspector of Police

Kabilarasu Vs the Inspector of Police

G. Jesudass@ Yesudass Vs the Inspector of Police

Palanichamy Vs Tamilselvi

Parthiban, Vs the Inspector of Police

Guru Bharath Vs the Inspector of Police