Partly allowed

Arul Kumar @ Arunkumar v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC24 Apr 2019CRL MP/4300/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Criminal Judicial Bench suspended substantive sentences of two petitioners convicted in a伙宅 attack case, enlarging them on bail with financial sureties to ensure appearance in Committal Court until further orders.

What did the court decide?

Substantive sentences of imprisonment suspended for the respective petitioners; they are enlarged on bail subject to executing bonds with sureties and appearing before the Committal Court monthly.

Arul Kumar @ Arunkumar Vs the Inspector of Police — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Wednesday, the Twenty Fourth day of April Two Thousand Nineteen PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr Justice M. SATHYANARAYANAN and

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice M. NIRMAL KUMAR
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION Nos.4300 and 4815 of 2019
in CRL.A.Nos.614 and 715 of 2018
1 ARUL KUMAR @ ARUNKUMAR [ PETITIONERS / APPELLANTS
2 SANTHOSH KUMAR in CRL.MP.No.4300 of 2019 ]
3 SASIKUMAR
4 PALANISAMY
VIVEKANANDAN [ PETITIONER / APPELLANT
in CRL.MP.No.4815 of 2019 ]
Vs
THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE [ RESPONDENT ]
TALUK POLICE STATION, in CRL.MP.No.4300 of 2019 ]
CHIDAMBARAM,
CUDDALORE DISTRICT.
CRIME NO.33 OF 2013
THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE [ RESPONDENT ]
CHIDAMBARAM TALUK POLICE STATION, in CRL.MP.No.4815 of 2019 ]
CHIDAMBARAM TALUK,
CRIME NO.86 OF 2013

¶6

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the Memorandum of Grounds in CRL.A.No. on the file of the High Court, the High Court will be pleased to suspend the sentence

¶7

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

¶8

(i) suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioners made in SC No.70 of 2014 dated 20.09.2018 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Disrict and Sessions Judge, Chidambaram and enlarge the petitioners on bail pending disposal of the main Crl.A.No.614 of 2018

¶9

(ii) suspend the sentence imposed in S.C.No.70 of 2014 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chidambaram and enlarge him on bail pending disposal of the CRL.A.No.715 of 2018.

¶10

Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the Memorandum of Grounds in CRL.A.Nos.614 and 715 of 2018 on the file of the High Court and upon hearing the arguments of M/s.E.SATHISH BABU Advocate for the petitioner in CRL.MP.No.4300 of 2019 in CRL.A.No.614 of 2018, and MR.M.SHAHJAHAN Advocate for the petitioner in CRL.MP.No.4815 of 2019 in CRL.A.No.715 of 2018, and of MR.R.PRATHAP KUMAR Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent the court made the following order:-

¶11

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Crl.MP.No.4300/2019 in Crl.A.No.614/2018, on instructions, seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition insofar as petitioners No.1 to 3 / A-3, A-4 and A-5 are concerned and has also made an endorsement in the petition to that effect and he is pressing the petition for suspension of the substantive sentence of imprisonment in respect of the 4^th petitioner/A-9 is concerned. Accordingly, the petition in Crl.MP.No.4300/2019 in Crl.A.No.614/2018 is dismissed insofar as petitioners 1 to 3/A-3, A-4 and A-5 are concerned.

¶12

2 The 4^th petitioner in Crl.MP.No.4300/2019 in Crl.A.No.614/2018 is arrayed as A-9 and the petitioner in Crl.MP.No.4815/2019 in Crl.A.No.715/2018 is arrayed as A-7 out of 14 accused in SC.No.70/2014. A-7 and A-9 were found guilty for the commission of the offences u/s.147, 294-B, 436, 302 read with 149 IPC and the Trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 20.09.2018, had convicted A-7 and A-9 for the commission of the above said offences and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment as follows:-

¶13

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

¶14

*ank of the* *Accused*	*Conviction under* *section*	*Sentence imposed*
A-7 and A-9	147 IPC	Each of the accused was sentenced to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment.
	294-B IPC	Each of the accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.250/- each, with a default sentence of one month simple imprisonment.
	436 IPC	Each of the accused was sentenced to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each, with a default sentence of 1 year simple imprisonment.
	302 r/w 149 IPC	Each of the accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each, with a default sentence of 1 year simple imprisonment.
Set-off was al said conviction appeals and p seeking suspe imprisonment.	so granted to them and sentences, A-7 ending appeal, they nsion of the s	u/s.428 Cr.P.C. Challenging the and A-9 had preferred the present had filed the present petitions ubstantive sentences of their

¶15

3 The facts leading to the present petitions have been narrated in detail and in extenso in the order dated 08.03.2019 made in Crl.MP.No.3222/2019 in Crl.A.No.769/2018 and therefore, it is unnecessary to re-state the facts once again.

¶16

4 The respective learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/A-7 and A-9 would submit that except the testimonies of the eyewitnesses, viz., P.Ws.3 and 4, no other materials have been produced by the prosecution to speak about the fatal overt acts on the part of the petitioners herein/A-7 and A-9 and even assuming for the sake of argument, that their testimonies are credible and trustworthy, the overt act attributed against A-7 and A-9 is that they set fire to the thatched house in which the deceased was residing and on seeing the fire, the deceased came out of the house and he was fatally attacked by A-1 to A-4 and the deceased had died on account of head injuries. It is also brought to the knowledge of this Court that this Court, in its order dated 06.12.2018 made in Crl.MP.No.15914/2018 in Crl.A.No.769/2018 as well as in the order

¶17

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

¶18

dated 08.03.2019 made in Crl.MP.No.3222/2019 in Crl.A.No.769/2018, has considered the plea of the accused, who are similarly placed and suspended their substantive sentences of imprisonment.

¶19

5 Mr.R.Prathap Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that apart from the present case, A-7 and A-9 are not having any antecedents / not involved in commission of any other offences.

¶20

6 In the light of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the 4^th petitioner in Crl.MP.No.4300/2019 in Crl.A.No.614/2018 and the petitioner in Crl.MP.No.4815/2019 in Crl.A.No.715/2018 are entitled fore the relief of suspension of their substantive sentences of imprisonment.

¶21

7 In the result, the petition in Crl.MP.No.4300/2019 in Crl.A.No.614/2018 insofar as the 4^th petitioner/A-9 and the petition in Crl.MP.No.4815/2019 in Crl.A.No.715/2018 are ordered and the substantive sentences of imprisonment alone in respect of the 4^th petitioner/A-9 in Crl.MP.No.4300/2019 in Cr.A.No.614/2018 and in respect of the petitioner in Crl.MP.No.4815/2019 in Crl.A.No.715/2018 are suspended and they are directed to be enlarged on bail on condition that the 4^th petitioner/A-9 in Crl.MP.No.4300/2019 in Cr.A.No.614/2018 and the petitioner in Crl.MP.No.4815/2019 in Crl.A.No.715/2018 shall execute individual bonds for a sum of Rs.10,000/- [Rupees ten thousand only] with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.2, Chidambaram and on further condition that they shall appear before the Committal Court, viz., the Court of Judicial Magistrate, No.2, Chidambaram [PRC.No.33/2013] on the first working day of every English Calendar Month at 10.30 a.m. until further orders.

¶22

-sd/24/04/2019

¶23

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

¶24

TRUE COPY

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

1 THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
CHIDAMBARAM
2 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II
CHIDAMBARAM
3 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
CHIDAMBARAM
4 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
CUDDALORE [FOR INFORMATION]
5 THE SUPERINTENDENT,
CENTRAL PRISON,
CUDDALORE
6 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
TALUK POLICE STATION,
CHIDAMBARAM,
CUDDALORE DISTRICT
7 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
CHIDAMBARAM TALUK POLICE STATION
CHIDAMBARAM TALUK
+1 C.C. to M/S.N.SATHISH BABU Advocate on payment of necessary
charges SR.NO.8237
+1 C.C. to M/S.M.SHAHJAHAN Advocate on payment of necessary
charges SR.NO.8260
Order
in
CRL MP.Nos.4300 & 4815 of 2019
in
CRL.A.Nos.614 and 715 of 2018
Date :24/04/2019

¶29

From 7.2.2001 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the BAIL/Anti.BAIL Orders in this format

¶30

cm 25/04/2019

¶31

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

Arul Kumar @ Arunkumar v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arul Kumar @ Arunkumar 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

Gomathi, Aged 36 Years, Vs State Rep. by Its

Kajitha Beevi Vs the Commisissionerof Police Mettur Dam Salem

S.Jayalakshmi Vs the Superintendent of Police

D.Usharani Vs the District Superintendent of Police

Balaji Vs State by

A.Kala Vs the Chief Secretary