Allowed

Periyasamy v. State by

Madras HC10 Feb 2020CRL MP/666/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge order in a criminal miscellaneous petition considered an application for suspension of sentence and bail pending disposal of a criminal appeal. The court granted the relief of suspending the substantive sentence of imprisonment and enlarging the appellant on bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of substantive sentence of imprisonment and enlargement of the appellant on bail.

Periyasamy Vs State by — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Monday, the Tenth day of February Two Thousand Twenty

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice R. MAHADEVAN

¶6

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.666 OF 2020

¶7

IN CRL.APPEAL.NO.31 OF 2020

¶8

PERIYASAMY [ PETITIONER / APPELLANT ]

¶9

¶10

STATE BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MARANDAHALLI POLICE STATION, MARANDAHALLI,

¶11

DHARMAPURI DISTRICT

¶12

( CRIME NO.60 OF 2017)

¶13

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the Memorandum of Grounds in CRL.A.NO.31 OF 2020 on the file of the High Court, the High Court will be pleased to suspend the sentence imposed on the Petitioner/Appellant herein in S.C.No.89/2017 by judgment dated 26.11.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District and enlarge the petitioner on bail, pending disposal of the above CRL.A.NO.31 OF 2020 [IN CRL.MP.NO.666 OF 2020]

¶14

Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the Memorandum of Grounds in CRL.A.NO.31 OF 2020 on the file of the High Court and upon hearing the arguments of M.R.JOTHIMANIAN, Advocate for the petitioner and of MR.K.PRABAKAR, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR on behalf of the Respondent the court made the following order:-

¶15

The petitioner faced trial in S.C.No.89 of 2017 on the file of learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri District. Under judgment dated 26.11.2019, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner / accused for the offences as tabulated hereunder:-

¶16

*Convicted of the Offence*			*Senten*	*ced*
Under Section 341 IPC	To Impr	undergo isonment.	one	month	Simple
Under Section 323 IPC	To Impr	undergo isonment.	one	year	Simple
Under Section 354 IPC	To Impr	undergo isonment.	two	years	Rigorous

¶17

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

¶18

*Convicted of the Offence*	*Sentenced*
Under Section 376 IPC	To undergo ten years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment.
Under Section 4 r/w 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998	To undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default to undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment.
2. In the said judgment out of fine amount of Rs.50 the prosecutrix, as compens	of the trial Court, it was held that ,000/-, Rs.25,000/- shall be paid to ation under Section 357 (1) of the
Cr.P.C. The sentences were	ordered to run concurrently. As
against the aforesaid convi	ctions and sentences, the petitioner
has filed this Criminal App suspension of sentence.	eal, along with the petition seeking

¶19

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner / accused that the amount of fine had already been paid, as directed by the trial Court in its judgment. He further submitted that there are several infirmities and inconsistencies in the prosecution case and there are also contradictions in material particulars in the evidence of the prosecution. He also submitted that there are arguable points available in this Criminal Appeal, which is not likely to be taken up for final hearing in the near future and hence, the substantive sentence imposed against the petitioner may be suspended.

¶20

Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioner. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the submissions of learned counsel for petitioner, this Court is of the view that the petitioner herein can be granted the relief of suspension of sentence. Accordingly, the substantive sentence of imprisonment alone is suspended and the petitioner herein is directed to be enlarged on bail on the following conditions:-

¶21

a) The Petitioner/Accused is directed to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties of whom, one should be a blood relative, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri District;

¶22

b) The Petitioner/Accused and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impressions in the surety bonds and the learned Judge may obtain a copy of their Aadhaar Cards or Bank Pass Books to ensure their identities. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

c) The Petitioner/Accused shall appear before the Trial Court at 10.30 a.m. on the first working day of every English Calender Month, until the disposal of the Appeal and if he is not able to appear before the Trial Court on any day, due to unavoidable circumstances, he shall make arrangements to file an application under Section 317 of Cr.PC. and shall appear before the Trial Court on any other day in lieu of his absence, as directed by the Trial Court. Such an application shall not be entertained often.

¶24

-sd/-
10/02/2020
This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried
into execution by all concerned
TRUE COPY
Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.)
High Court, Madras - 600 104.
TO
1 THE SESSIONS JUDGE,
FAST TRACK MAHILA COURT, DHARMAPURI,
DHARMAPURI DISTRICT.
2 THE SUPERINTENDENT,
CENTRAL PRISON, VELLORE.
3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MARANDAHALLI POLICE STATION,
MARANDAHALLI,
DHARMAPURI DISTRICT.
+1C.C. to M.R.JOTHIMANIAN Advocate on payment of necessary
charges SR NO.2509

¶25

Order in CRL MP.666/2020 in CRL.A.31/2020 Date :10/02/2020 From 7.2.2001 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the BAIL/Anti.BAIL Orders in this format https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ MK:12/02/2020

Periyasamy v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Periyasamy v. State by

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

Thiru.Arulraj, M/a 37 Years, Vs Nandhini

G.Kumari, Aged 55 Years Vs D.Gurunathan, Aged 65 Years

M.Saravanan, M/a 35 Years, Vs Mrs.Durga Lakshmi, F/a 28 Year

S.Sekar Vs Sri.K.Mariasamy

Shyla Vs Josewilfred

Carl Evgene D`Silva, Vs Tamilsevli