Allowed

Senthilkumaran, v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC14 Feb 2019CRL OP(MD)/2338/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a private complaint alleging public nuisance and criminal harassment. The court, treating the case as a family dispute, ordered free bail with conditions including summons, reporting daily to the police, and not tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on receipt of arrest warrant or appearance within fifteen days before Judicial Magistrate, Kamuthi, subject to conditions.

Senthilkumaran, Vs the Inspector of Police — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

Thursday, the Fourteenth day of February Two Thousand Nineteen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

CRL OP(MD) No.2338 of 2019

¶7

SENTHILKUMARAN ... PETITIONER / SOLE ACCUSED

¶8

STATE REP. BY

¶9

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ABIRAMAM POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT. IN CRIME NO.161/2016 ... RESPONDENT

¶10

For Petitioner : MR.SATHISH KUMAR, Advocate for MR.M.SUBASH BABU Advocate

¶11

For Respondent : MR.K.SUYAMBULINGA BHARATHI, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶12

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

¶13

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶14

The petitioner who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Section 294(b) IPC and Section 4 of the Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, in Cr.No.161 of 2016, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶15

2.It is the case of the prosecution that the defacto complainant is the mother-in-law of the petitioner herein and she preferred a complaint as if the petitioner harassed her daughter.

¶16

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he is an innocent person.

¶17

4.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that the parties did not dispute the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ relationship between the parties and that investigation is pending.

¶18

¶19

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that it is purely family dispute, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kamuthi, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

¶20

(a)the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

¶21

(b)the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;

¶22

(c)the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

¶23

(d)the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

¶24

(e)on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner 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]; and;

¶25

(f)if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

¶26

/ TRUE COPY /

¶27

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)

¶28

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

¶29

¶30

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KAMUTHI.

¶31

2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, RAMANATHAPURAM.

¶32

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ABIRAMAM POLICE STATION, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶33

¶34

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

¶35

+1 CC to M/s.M.SUBASH BABU, Advocate ( SR-3176[I] dated 15/02/2019 )

¶36

ORDER

¶37

¶38

CRL OP(MD) No.2338 of 2019 Date :14/02/2019 JM/PN/SAR 1/21.02.2019/3P/6C

¶39

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

Senthilkumaran, v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Senthilkumaran, 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

Epanechar Immanuvel @ Vs the State

R.Shanmugasundaram, Vs Deputy General Manager

M.Azhagu Sundaram Vs the Joint Director

Paraman Vs the Inspector of Police

Gunaseelan Vs the Regional Manager

D.Ramanthan, Vs the District Collector