Allowed

Thangapandi v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC18 Jun 2020CRL A(MD)/192/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a criminal appeal against the rejection of a bail application, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and granted bail to the appellants charged under the SC/ST (PoA) Act and IPC, subject to execution of bonds and weekly appearance conditions.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed. The order dated 10.06.2020 was set aside. The appellants were directed to be enlarged on bail on conditions regarding bond and weekly appearances.

Thangapandi Vs The Inspector of Police — Caste Atrocities | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATE : 18.06.2020

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

CRL. A. (MD) NO. 192 OF 2020

¶7

1.Thangapandi 2.Prakash

¶8

... Appellant A1 and A2

¶9

- Vs -

¶10

The Inspector of Police, Eruvadi Police Station, Tirunelveli District, in Crime No.244 of 2020

¶11

... Respondents/Complainant

¶12

Criminal Appeal filed u/s 14 A(2) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989, to call for the records relating to the order dated 10.06.2020 made in Cr.M.P.No.936 of 2020 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Tirunelveli and to set aside the same and release the appellants on bail in connection with Crime No.244 of 2020 on the file of the respondent.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sasikumar For Respondent : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi Govt. Advocate (criminal side)

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

The appellants/A1 and A2 along with other accused, were charged for the offences u/s 147, 148, 294 (b), 323, 324, 506(ii) of IPC and Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s), 3(2)(Va) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. Pending trial, the appellants herein filed bail application, which, after hearing was dismissed by the trial court against which the present appeal is filed.

¶16

2.Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that though the prosecution has completed much of the investigation, the trial court, without appreciating the materials available on record, has dismissed the application for bail, filed by the appellants and that the appellants will not indulge in any act hampering with the investigation and, hence, prays for enlarging the appellants on bail. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

_____________ CRL(MD) A No.192/2020

¶18

¶19

appellants that in this case, injured had already been discharged from the hospital.

¶20

Per contra, Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), appearing for the respondent submitted that the trial court, after detailed arguments by both sides, has rejected the application for bail by a well considered order and, therefore, no interference is called for with the said order and this petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶21

This Court gave its careful consideration to the submissions on either side and also perused the materials available on record.

¶22

Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for the State and the fact that the trial of the case would take some time to complete and taking into consideration the incarceration of the appellants for a considerable period of time, this Court is inclined to allow the criminal appeal by setting aside the order dated 10.06.2020 made in Cr. M.P. No.936 of 2020 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under SC/ST Act Tirunelveli, by granting bail to the appellants.

¶23

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the appellants are directed to be enlarged on bail on condition that the each of the appellant executes a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties, each for a likesum, to the satisfaction of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under SC/ST Act Tirunelveli, and on further condition that the appellants shall appear before the said Court at 10.30 a.m. on the 1^st working day of every week until further orders.

// True Copy //

Skn

1.The II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under SC/ST Act Tirunelveli.

¶28

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

¶29

_____________ CRL(MD) A No.192/2020

¶30

¶31

2.The Inspector of Police, Eruvadi Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

¶32

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶33

4.The Superintendent, Central Prison,

¶34

Palayamkottai,Tirunelveli District.

¶35

CRL. A. (MD) NO.192 OF 2020 18.06.2020

¶36

AP(18/06/2020) 3P 5C

¶37

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

¶38

_____________ CRL(MD) A No.192/2020

Thangapandi v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thangapandi 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

M.S.Shanker Vs The Sub Inspector of Police

R.Gurunathan Vs the Inspector of Police

Selvaraj Vs The Inspector of Police

Ayyanar Vs The Inspector of Police

N.Ashok Kumar Vs The Inspector of Police

Mariyasusai Vs the Inspector of Police