Allowed

Arikrihnan v. State Rep.by

Madras HC24 Nov 2020CRL OP/18596/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for offences including murder arising from a land dispute, the High Court granted bail to petitioners in judicial custody, imposing conditions including separate bonds, reporting to police, and restrictions on tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Ordered release on bail with a separate bond of Rs.10,000 each, two sureties, and adherence to specific reporting and conduct conditions.

Arikrihnan Vs State Rep.by — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 24.11.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTIC E M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.18596 of 2020

¶6

1.Arikrishnan 2.Rajasekar ... Petitioners Vs.

¶7

State Rep.by The Inspector of Police Rishivandiam Police Station Kallakurichi District (Crime No.1324 of 2020) ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime No.1324 of 2020, pending on the file of the respondent police.

¶8

For Petitioners: Mr.N.Ranjith Kumar For Respondent : Mr.Shunmugarajeswaran Government Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R (The case has been heard through video conference)

¶9

The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 05.10.2020, for the offences punishable under Section 294(b), 323, 341, 506(ii) IPC and subsequently altered into 294(b), 323, 341, 506(ii). 302 IPC , in Crime No.1324 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.

¶10

The case of the prosecution is that the deceased is the junior father of the petitioners and they both are residing at the adjacent land. When the deceased put up construction in his land, the petitioners had blocked the pathway and when the same was questioned by the deceased, the petitioners have assaulted the deceased with wooden log on the back of his head, due to which, the deceased fainted and fell down. The further allegation is that when the deceased was taken to the Government Hospital, Thiruporur, he was referred to Government Hospital, Kalakurichi and from there he was referred to Mundiyabakkam Government Hospital, where he succumbed to injuries. Originally the case was

¶11

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

¶12

registered for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 341, 506 (ii) IPC and after the death of the victim, it was altered into 294(b), 323, 341, 506(ii). 302 IPC ,

¶13

It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case, due to pathway dispute. He would submit that the deceased is none other than the junior father of the petitioners and on the day of the occurrence, there was a wordy quarrel and scuffle between both the families and during the scuffle the deceased fell down and sustained injuries on his head, which led to his death and not by the assault of the petitioners. He would further submit that the petitioners were arrested on 05.10.2020 and they are in judicial custody for the past 45 days.

¶14

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would vehemently oppose stating that due to pathway dispute, the petitioners have assaulted the victim with wooden log on his head, due to which, he fainted and fell down. He would further submit that the deceased was immediately taken to the Government Hospital, Thiruporur, thereafter, he was referred to Government Hospital, Kalakurichi and from there he was referred to Mundiyabakkam Government Hospital, where he succumbed to injuries and the petitioners are the cause for the injury. He would further submit that the investigation has been completed and awaiting opinion from the Deputy Legal Advisor.

¶15

Heard both sides and perused the material placed on record.

¶16

Taking into consideration of the facts and submissions made by the learned counsels and also considering the fact that the incident had taken place due to pathway dispute and there are no bad antecedents against the petitioners and also considering the period of incarceration suffered by the petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners subject to the following conditions:-

¶17

(a) Accordingly, the Petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each, with two sureties each for a likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tirukoilur, and on further conditions that;

¶18

(b)the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar Card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity;

¶19

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

¶20

(c) the petitioners on their release from prison shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter appear before the Trial Court everyday at 10.30 a.m. until further orders.

¶21

(d) the petitioners shall not commit any offences of similar nature;

¶22

(e) the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

¶23

(f) the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

¶24

(g) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the Petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the Petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];

¶25

(h) if the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

¶26

7.With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is ordered.

¶27

-sd/-

¶28

24/11/2020

¶29

This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned

¶30

TRUE COPY

¶31

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

¶32

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

¶33

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TIRUKOILUR 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE VILLUPURAM DISTRICT [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, CUDDALORE 4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS. 5 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RISHIVANDIAM POLICE STATION, KALLAKURICHI DISTRICT CC to M/S.N.RANJITH KUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.18596/2020 Date :24/11/2020 GKS:27/11/2020

¶34

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

Arikrihnan v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arikrihnan v. State Rep.by

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

Maideen Vs The Inspector of Police

R.Muthukrishnan Vs The Inspector of Police

Johnson Vs The Inspector of Police

Golam Mortoja Vs State by

Dhandapani Vs the Inspector of Police

Babu @ Kurappa Vs State Rep by