Partly allowed

Balamurugan v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC21 Jan 2020CRL OP(MD)/331/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court granted regular bail to a petitioner who was arrested in breach of an interim order preventing arrest. The court initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against police officers who registered a fresh case solely to evade the interim protection.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with sureties; police officers facing suo motu contempt proceedings.

Balamurugan Vs The Inspector of Police — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.331 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Date : 21/01/2020

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

CRL OP(MD). No.331 of 2020

¶7

BALAMURUGAN ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN

¶8

¶9

STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KRIVALAMVANTHANALLUR POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT, NOW TENKASI DISTRICT, CRIME NO.NOT KNOWN OF 2019. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶10

For Petitioner : M/s.G.Thalaimutharasu, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.A.Robinson, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶11

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

¶12

PRAYER :-

¶13

For Anticipatory bail in Crime No.not known of 2019 on the file of the Respondent Police

¶14

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶15

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

¶16

The petitioner apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 294(b), 506(ii) of I.P.C., in Crime No.Not Known of 2019 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶17

The petitioner filed this petition seeking anticipatory bail as he apprehended arrest at the hands of the respondent based on the complaint of one Kaleeshwari. This Criminal Original Petition was listed before me on 09.01.2020. On the said date, no First Information Report was registered against the petitioner herein. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ This Court directed the petitioner to appear before the respondent

¶18

1/3

¶19

CRL OP(MD). No.331 of 2020

¶20

and adjourned the case to 21.01.2020. It was directed that the respondent will make a statement as to whether any First Information is to be registered against the petitioner. An interim protection against the arrest of the petitioner was granted.

¶21

4.Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was arrested in Crime No.20 of 2020 based on the complaint of the very same Kaleeshwari. The learned counsel specifically alleged that inorder to overcome the interim protection given by this Court, the respondent police have obtained a fresh statement from the said Kaleeshwari and registered a case and arrested him.

¶22

5.I am not for a moment, going into the tenability of the case against the petitioner. When the matter was listed before me, no First Information Report was registered and the matter was adjourned only to ascertain as to whether a First Information Report is going to be registered or not. Since an adjournment was granted in this case, in the very nature of things, the petition for anticipatory bail cannot be rendered infructuous by effecting the arrest during the intervening period. But the respondent police appears to have deliberately got a fresh First Information Report registered only to overcome the interim order granted in favour of the petitioner herein.

¶23

6.I have to necessarily take a serious view of the matter. Taking note of the fact that the arrest was made in breach of the interim order granted by this Court, I convert this anticipatory bail to one of bail. The petitioner who has been arrested in Crime No.20 of 2020, registered on the file of the respondent police for the offences under Sections 294(b), 506(ii) of IPC, is granted bail. It is stated that he is presently confined in Sub Jail, Sankarankovil.

¶24

7.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to the following conditions;

¶25

(i) the petitioner shall execute a 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 learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil.

¶26

(ii) the petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent police as and when required for the interrogation.

¶27

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

¶28

2/3

¶29

CRL OP(MD). No.331 of 2020

¶30

8.Thiru.A.Sankaranarayanan, Sub Inspector of Police, K.V.Nallur police station, was very much present before this Court on 09.01.2020. He was fully aware of the interim protection granted by this Court against the arrest of the petitioner. Mrs.Chithrakala, Inspector of Police, K.V.Nallur Police Station, appears to have instructed Thiru A.Sankaranarayanan to register Crime No.20 of 2020 and also arrest the petitioner.

¶31

9.Therefore, I initiate suo motu contempt proceedings against Thiru.A.Sankaranarayanan, Sub Inspector of Police, K.V.Nallur and Mrs.Chithrakala, Inspector of Police, K.V.Nallur Police Station, Tirunelveli District, now Tenkasi District. Registry to number the suo motu contempt and issue notice to the contemnors.

¶32

sd/-

¶33

21/01/2020

¶34

/ TRUE COPY / / /2020

¶35

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)

¶36

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO

¶37

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SANKARANKOVIL.

¶38

2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TIRUNELVELI.

¶39

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KRIVALAMVANTHANALLUR POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT, NOW TENKASI DISTRICT.

¶40

4 THE OFFICER INCHARGE, SUB JAIL, SANKARANKOVIL.

¶41

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

¶42

+1 CC to M/s.G.THALAIMUTHARASU, Advocate ( SR-982[I] dated 21/01/2020 )

¶43

COPY TO:

¶44

THE SECTION OFFICER, CRIMINAL SECTION, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶45

ORDER

¶46

IN CRL OP(MD) No.331 of 2020 Date :21/01/2020 PNN

¶47

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ JM/VR/SAR 3/21.01.2020/3P/8C

¶48

3/3

Balamurugan v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balamurugan 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

E. Muthu Vs The Inspector of Police

Ramanathan Vs The Inspector of Police

Sakthivel Vs The Inspector of Police

Namburajan Vs The Inspector of Police

Balamurugan Vs The Sub Inspector of Police

Krishnapillai Vs The Inspector of Police