Allowed

S.Pandiammal v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC16 May 2019CRL OP(MD)/7138/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, accused No.1 in a Section 306 IPC case, subject to detention conditions including daily reporting, execution of a bond, and restrictions on tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to daily reporting, execution of bond, and conditions against absconding or tampering with evidence.

S.Pandiammal Vs the Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | 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.7138 of 2019

¶7

S.PANDIAMMAL ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.1

¶8

¶9

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, T.KALLUPATTI POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT

¶10

IN CRIME NO. 53/2019 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.M.GURURAJ, Advocate

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶15

The petitioner/ Accused No.1, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent Police, in connection with Crime No.53 of 2019, for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶16

2.Heard Mr.M.Gururaj, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.Robinson, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State.

¶17

3.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the deceased were working in a Company viz., Penquin and during the working hours, this petitioner is said to have harassed the deceased and out of which, the deceased consumed some tablets and committed suicide. On the complaint of the mother of the deceased, this case has been registered.

¶18

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and she has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.

¶19

5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), on instructions from the respondent Police submitted that the investigation is going https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ on.

¶20

¶21

6.Considering the nature of the offence and also the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the daughter of the petitioner gave birth to a child last week, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions.

¶22

7.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on her appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy was made ready before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur, Madurai District, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a separate 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 and on further conditions that:-

¶23

[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.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

[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.

¶27

[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].

¶28

sd/16/05/2019

¶29

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

¶30

Madurai - 625 023.

¶31

¶32

1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PERAIYUR, MADURAI DISTRICT

¶33

2.DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI.

¶34

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

¶35

¶36

3.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

¶37

T.KALLUPATTI POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT.

¶38

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

¶39

+1.CC to M/S.M.GURURAJ Advocate SR.No.8654

¶40

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.7138 of 2019 Date :16/05/2019 SSL PK/PN/SAR-3/20.05.2019 : 3P/6C

¶41

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

S.Pandiammal v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Pandiammal 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

Sathik Batcha, Vs the Inspector of Police

Tamilarasan, Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Mano @ Mano Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police