Allowed

Sathik Batcha, v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC16 May 2019CRL OP(MD)/6689/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner accused in murder case sought bail. Court granted bail after 84 days of incarceration, subject to bond, sureties, and reporting conditions, referring to P.K. Shaji case for consequences of breach.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail via bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties conditioned on addressing, non-escaping, and non-interference with evidence/witnesses.

Sathik Batcha, 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 Sixteenth day of May Two Thousand Nineteen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

CRL OP(MD) No.6689 of 2019

¶7

SATHIK BATCHA

¶8

... PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.1

¶9

¶10

STATE REP.BY

¶11

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE AYYAMPETTAI POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR DISTRICT. CRIME NO.29 OF 2019 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.KARUNAKARAN, Advocate

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶14

PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

¶15

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶16

The petitioner/Accused No.1 who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 20.02.2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 342 & 302 of IPC in Crime No.29 of 2019 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶17

2.Heard Mr.K.M.Karunakaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.K.Ramakrishnan, Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

¶18

3.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner's daughter was in love affair with one Sahul Hameed. On knowing that, the petitioner has called the brother of Sahul Hameed for a talk in dealing with the issue, where he was compelled to take tea and biscuit and subsequent to that the brother of Sahul Hameed developed certain giddiness, due to which he was admitted at the hospital and he died after 23 days. The petitioner has been arrested on the allegation that he has given some poisonous substance to the deceased and thereby the petitioner has become responsible for the death of the deceased. Hence, the complaint.

¶19

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner is an innocent and has not committed any offences as alleged by the prosecution. The learned counsel further submitted

¶20

¶21

that this petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 20.02.2019 and he is languishing in the jail for the past 84 days. He also submitted that the co-accused 3 to 6 have been enlarged on bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.4547 and 5834 of 2019 on 24.04.2019.

¶22

5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the substantial portion of the investigation has been completed.

¶23

6.Taking into consideration of the fact that a substantial portion of the investigation is completed and also the fact that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for more than 84 days, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions.

¶24

7.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.3, Thanjavur and on further conditions that:-

¶25

[a] the petitioner as well as the sureties shall submit a copy of their Aadhar card or any other identity cards issued by the Government, in proof of their address, along with the surety bonds; [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police every Monday at 10:30 a.m., until further orders;

¶26

[c] the petitioner shall not tamper the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

¶27

[d] the petitioner shall co-operate for the investigation and the trial. The petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial and in event of the petitioner absconds, the respondent police shall register a case as provided under Section 229-A IPC and

¶28

[e] in the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate / trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner, as per the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560].

¶29

sd/-

¶30

16/05/2019

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.3, THANAJVUR.

¶34

DO-THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ THANJAVUR DISTRICT AT KUMBAKONAM.

¶35

¶36

THE SUPERINTENDENT,CENTRAL PRISON, TRICHY.

¶37

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE AYYAMPETTAI POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR DISTRICT.

¶38

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

¶39

+1. CC to MR.K.M.KARUNAKARAN Advocate SR.No.8496

¶40

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.6689 of 2019 Date :16/05/2019 MS/MMS/SAR-2/17.05.2019/3P.7C

¶41

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

Sathik Batcha, v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sathik Batcha, 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

Karthigainathan, Vs the Inspector of Police

Bala Alias Pathinettam Vs the Inspector of Police

S.K.Suresh Anand, Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Tamilarasan, Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Mano @ Mano Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Pandiammal Vs the Inspector of Police