Allowed

Periyasamy v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC15 May 2019CRL OP(MD)/7079/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to five accused persons charged with offences including Section 506(ii) IPC. Considering the victim's discharge and the nature of remaining charges as bailable, bail was ordered subject to surrender within 15 days and specific conditions like reporting daily, not tampering with evidence, and executing a bond.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted, court ordered to release petitioners in event of arrest subject to surrender within 15 days and conditions including execution of bond and daily reporting.

Periyasamy 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

T he Hon`ble Mr Justice B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

CRL OP(MD) No.7079 of 2019

¶7

1.PERIYASAMY

¶8

2.RAJESHWARI

¶9

3.VANITHA

¶10

4.JAISANKAR 5.JAGADEESAN ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 to 5

¶11

THE STATE REP.BY,

¶12

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, JAMBUNATHAPURAM POLICE STATION, TRICHY DISTRICT.

¶13

(CRIME NO. 38 OF 2019) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶14

For Petitioners : MR.N.ANANDAKUMAR, Advocate

¶15

For Respondent : MR.A.ROBINSON,Government Advocate(Crl.Side)

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶18

The petitioners/accused No.1 to 5, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent Police, in connection with Crime No.38 of 2019, for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) of IPC, seek anticipatory bail.

¶19

2.Heard Mr.N.Anandakumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr.A.Robinson, learned Government Advocate (Crl Side) appearing for the State.

¶20

3.The case of the prosecution is that due to wordy quarrel, the petitioners attacked the de-facto complainant with aruval and threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, the complaint.

¶21

4.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that except the offence punishable under Section 506(ii) IPC, all other offences are bailable in nature and according to him, the victim was also https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ discharged from hospital.

¶22

¶23

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.

¶24

6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the only non bailable offence is punishable under Section 506(ii) IPC and considering the fact that the victim has been discharged from the hospital, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to the following conditions.

¶25

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, Thuraiyur, 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:-

¶26

[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.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

[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.

¶30

[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].

¶31

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)

¶32

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Madurai - 625 023.

¶33

¶34

¶35

1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THURAIYUR

¶36

2.DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TRICHY DISTRICT

¶37

3.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, JAMBUNATHAPURAM POLICE STATION, TRICHY DISTRICT.

¶38

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

¶39

+1. CC to M/S.N.ANANDAKUMAR Advocate SR.No.8488

¶40

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.7079 of 2019 Date :15/05/2019 AAV

¶41

PK/JC/SAR-1/20.05.2019 : 3P/6C

¶42

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

Periyasamy v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Periyasamy 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

Bala Alias Pathinettam Vs the Inspector of Police

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