Allowed

Bala Alias Pathinettam v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC15 May 2019CRL OP(MD)/6938/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposed of a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, considering the nature of offences and the victim's discharge, granted bail subject to conditions including reporting daily and executing a bond.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners ordered to be released on bail with a bond of Rs.10,000/- each and two sureties each, subject to conditions including daily reporting and cooperation in investigation.

Bala Alias Pathinettam Vs the Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

Wednesday, the Fifteenth day of May Two Thousand Nineteen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

CRL OP(MD) No.6938 of 2019

¶7

1 BALA @ PATHINETTAM PANDIYAN

¶8

2 SARAVANAN A@ SATHIS

¶9

3 MARUTHU PANDI @ MARUTHU PANDIYAN

¶10

4 KARTHIK

¶11

5 BOOMINATHAN ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN

¶12

¶13

THE STATE REP. BY ITS, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANAMADURAI SIPCOT POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT

¶14

(CRIME NO. 66 OF 2019) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT

¶15

For Petitioners : M/S.M.SIVA RAMA KRISHNAN, Advocate

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶19

The petitioners/accused rank known, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent Police, in connection with Crime No.66 of 2019, for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 294(b), 323,324,506(ii) and 379(NH) of IPC, seek anticipatory bail.

¶20

2.Heard Mr.M.Sivarama krishnan, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Robinson, learned Government Advocate (Crl., side) appearing for the State.

¶21

3.The case of the prosecution is that due to money dispute, the petitioners along with others abused the de facto complainant, attacked him and threatened with dire consequences, thereby the de https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ facto sustained injuries. Hence, the complaint.

¶22

¶23

4.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that except the offence punishable under Sections 379(NH) and 506(ii) IPC, all other offences are bailable in nature and according to him, the victim was also discharged from hospital.

¶24

5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), on instruction, from the respondent Police confirmed that the victim has been discharged from the hospital. The learned Counsel further submitted that there is no previous case against the petitioners.

¶25

6.Considering the non-bailable offences are Sections 379(NH) and 506(ii) IPC, the victim has been discharged from the hospital. The alleged theft is in the course of their quarrel and the petitioner is not a habitual offender. This Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to the following conditions.

¶26

7.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 on which the order copy was made ready before the learned Judicial Magistrate Manamadurai, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate 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 and on further conditions that:-

¶27

[a] the petitioners 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;

¶28

[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m, until further orders;

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

[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 petitioners, as per the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].

¶32

/ TRUE COPY /

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

¶36

¶37

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MANAMADURAI, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT.

¶38

2 -DO-THRO-THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE MANAMADURAI SIPCOT POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT.

¶39

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

¶40

+1. CC to M/S.M.SIVA RAMA KRISHNAN Advocate SR.No.8413

¶41

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.6938 of 2019 Date :15/05/2019

¶42

ES/JC/SAR 1/22.05.2019/3P/6C

¶43

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

Bala Alias Pathinettam v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bala Alias Pathinettam 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

Emmanuel A.G.S. Vs the Secretary to Government

Jose Ananth Singh Vs the Inspector of Police

S.R. Mahesh Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Karthigainathan, Vs the Inspector of Police

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

Periyasamy Vs the Inspector of Police