Allowed

Veerapandi v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC5 Oct 2020CRL OP(MD)/10751/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to 21 accused persons facing charges of trespass, property damage, and theft arising from a family dispute. Bail was conditioned on a security deposit, bond execution, periodic reporting, and restrictions on evidence tampering or absconding.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted anticipatory bail upon deposit of Rs.3,00,000, execution of bond with sureties, and compliance with reporting and non-interference conditions.

Veerapandi Vs The Inspector of Police — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.10751 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 05/10/2020

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

CRL OP(MD). No.10751 of 2020

¶6

Veerapandi

¶7

Muthumari

¶8

Nagavalli @ Nagavali

¶9

Thangamuthu Chandran @ Thangamuthu Muneeswaran

¶10

Veeramani

¶11

Rajakumari

¶12

Pasumala Devi @ Pasumaladevi

¶13

Soorammal Panjadi @ Soorammal

¶14

Solaiyappan Karupnan @ Solaiyappan

¶15

Selvamani

¶16

Kalieswari @ Kaleeswari

¶17

Sudalai Muniyaiya @ Sudalai

¶18

Muthammal

¶19

Duraisamy Arakkasu @ Duraisamy

¶20

Senthil Shanmugam

¶21

Sethupathy @ Sedhupathi 17. Palpandi Kalimuthu @ Palpandi 18. Parvathi @ Umayaparavathi 19. Muthu Marieswaran Palpandi @ Muthu Marishwaran 20. Peratheep Kumar Ravichandran @ Pradeepkumar 21. Saravanan Murugesan @ Saravanakumar 22. Palapandi Mookkaiah @ Palpandi

¶22

Pal Duraisamy @ Balamurugan

¶23

Veerapandi Panjandi @ Veerapandi

¶24

Velusamy Sempattaiyan @ Velusamy

¶25

Kottaisamy Mookupodi @ Kottaisamy

¶26

Ganeswari @ Kanneshewari

¶27

Chinnathambi 29. Valli Chinna Thambi @ Valli

¶28

Panjawaranam @ Panjavarnam

¶29

Sooramuthu Muniyaiya@ Suramuthu 32. Kaliyammal 33. Sunthara Raj Muniyandi @ Sundaraj 34. Pandiyammal ... Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29 to 37 Vs The State rep.by The Inspector of Police, Sayalkudi Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Crime No.373 of 2020. ... Respondent/Complainant

¶30

1/4

¶31

CRL OP(MD). No.10751 of 2020

¶32

For Petitioners: Mr.K.Sivabalan, Advocate.

¶33

For Respondent : Mr.R.Erottuchamy, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶34

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

¶35

PRAYER :-

¶36

For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.373 of 2020 on the file of the Respondent Police

¶37

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶38

The petitioners, who are arrayed as A1 to 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29 to 37, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 448, 436, 379 and 506(i) of IPC and Section 3 of Tamilnadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, in Crime No.373 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶39

2.The case of the prosecution is that there is a dispute with regard to missing of one girl viz., Mookambigai D/O.Muniyasamy, due to which, the petitioners said to have trespassed into the defacto complainant's house and damaged house hold articles worth about Rs.70,000/- and also stolen 15 sovereigns of gold. Based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, the crime has been registered against the petitioner.

¶40

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent.

¶41

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the defacto complainant's son eloped with the petitioner's relative daughter and got married. Due to which, the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. All the allegations are concerned, they are nothing to do with the alleged occurrence. He further submitted that the petitioner's relative daughter and son of the defacto complainant are living together. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶42

5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent Police submitted that due to dispute with regard to missing of one girl viz., Mookambigai D/O.Muniyasamy, the petitioners trespassed into the defacto complainant's house and damaged the house hold articles worth about Rs.70,000/- and also stolen 12 sovereigns of gold and set fire to the poultry form.

¶43

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

¶44

2/4

¶45

CRL OP(MD). No.10751 of 2020

¶46

6.On perusal of the records, it is seen that one of the petitioners' relative daughter eloped with the defacto complainant's son and got married, due to which, the petitioners entered into the house of the defacto complainant and damaged house hold articles worth about Rs.70,000/- and stolen 12 sovereigns of gold and set fire to the poultry form.

¶47

7.Considering the above circumstances and also considering the fact that the petitioners are relative of the missing girl and there is no serious allegations against the petitioners, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

¶48

8.Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the credit of Crime No.373 of 2020, before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Kadaladi, Ramanathapuram District. On such deposit, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or their appearance, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Kadaladi, Ramanathapuram District, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a 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 or to the Police Officer, who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

¶49

(a)the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

¶50

(b)the petitioners 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 31 and 33 shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation. Further, the petitioners 2, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 18, 27, 29, 30, 32 and 34 shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation.

¶51

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

¶52

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

¶53

(e)on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5560]; and;

¶54

3/4

¶55

CRL OP(MD). No.10751 of 2020

¶56

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

sd/-

05/10/2020

/ TRUE COPY /

/ /2020 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶61

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶62

¶63

1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KADALADI, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2.DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT. 3.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SAYALKUDI POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶64

4.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶65

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶66

+1. CC to M/S.K.SIVABALAN Advocate SR.No.6811 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.10751 of 2020 Date :05/10/2020 VSG TK/AKM/SAR.2/12.10.2020/4P/6C

¶67

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

¶68

4/4

Veerapandi v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veerapandi 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

Ilavarasan Vs the Inspector of Police

Vairamuthu Vs the Women Inspector of Police

Nowshath Hussain Vs Selvaraj

Karpagam Vs The Inspector of Police

Sulthan Mothi Vs The Sub Inspector of Police

M.Easwaran Vs The Inspector of Police