Allowed

M. Pappathi, W/O.Karthick v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC16 Apr 2019CRL OP(MD)/5155/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to five petitioners accused of obstructing government land encroachment and causing a quarrel. The court imposed strict reporting conditions and a monetary bond, noting no physical injuries were sustained.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners were ordered to be released on bail upon execution of a bond with sureties and daily reporting until further orders.

M. Pappathi, W/O.Karthick Vs the Inspector of Police — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

Tuesday, the Sixteenth day of April Two Thousand Nineteen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

CRL OP(MD) No.5155 of 2019

¶7

1 M. PAPPATHI,

¶8

2 G. KARTHICK, 3 M. KALAIMANI, 4 V. PERIYASAMY, S/O.VEERAN, 5 K. PERIYASAMY,S/O.KATHAN ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED Nos.1 TO 5

¶9

¶10

THE STATE REP.BY

¶11

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VADAMADURAI P.S., VADAMADURAI. DINDIGUL DT.

¶12

(CRIME.NO.133 OF 2019) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT

¶13

For Petitioners : Mr.V.KARUNA Advocate

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.K.SUYAMBULINGA BHARATHI Govt. Advocate

¶15

( Crl. Side)

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶18

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 294(b), 324, 506(ii) and 109 IPC in Cr.No.133 of 2019 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶19

2.It is the case of the prosecution that the defacto complainant constructed a house in the Government poromboke land in which, the petitioner objected the same, due to which, there was a wordy quarrel arose between them. Hence, the Law Enforcing Agency registered a case against the petitioner.

¶20

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners are only questioning the encroachment made by the defacto complainant.

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that due to Gaja cyclone, the defacto

¶22

¶23

complainant's earlier house was damaged, had encroached the Government promoboke land, in which, the petitioner has objected for construction of house, thereby, there was a wordy quarrel arose between them. He further submitted that no one is injured.

¶24

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that no one is injured, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioners are 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, Vedadansur, Dindigul District, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only)each 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:

¶25

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

¶26

(b)the petitioners 2 to 5 shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders and first petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

(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 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]; and;

¶30

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

¶31

/ TRUE COPY /

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

¶35

¶36

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE VEDADANSUR,DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

¶37

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAMADURAI P.S., VADAMADURAI. DINDIGUL DT. 4 ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT,MADURAI. +1. CC to Mr.V.KARUNA Advocate SR.No.6928 PS/VR/SAR-2/23.04.2019/3P/6C ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.5155 of 2019 Date :16/04/2019

¶38

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

M. Pappathi, W/O.Karthick v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Pappathi, W/O.Karthick 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

Prabavathi, W/O.Prabakaran Vs the Inspector of Police

R.N.Kanagaraj Vs Mahendran

R.R.Elango Raja Vs Palani

M.Maria Suji, Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

1. Pappal Vs Kuttiappa Gounder(Deceased)

T.Rajnarayanan Vs State by