Allowed

Nandhini v. The Deputy Superintendent of police

Madras HC28 Feb 2020CRL OP(MD)/3820/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench granted anticipatory bail to petitioners facing charges of obscene acts (IPC 294(b)), hurt, and M.N.R.P.A. violations arising from a communal dispute. Bail was subject to conditions, including payment of compensation to the complainant.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners ordered to be released on bail subject to payment of Rs. 5,000 compensation, execution of bond of Rs. 10,000 each with two sureties, and appearance for interrogation.

Nandhini Vs The Deputy Superintendent of police — Caste Atrocities | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.3820 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 28/02/2020 PRESENT

¶3

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

¶4

CRL OP(MD). No.3820 of 2020

¶5

Nandhini

¶6

Latha ... Petitioners/Accused No.1 & 2

¶7

The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Aruppukottai Sub Division, Virudhunagar District..

¶8

State Rep.by The Inspector of Police, Thiruzuli Police Station, Virudhunagar District. (Crime No.296 of 2019). ... Respondent/ Complainant 3. Muthumari ... Respondents/ Defacto Complainant

¶9

For Petitioners : M/s.V.Baskaran, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr.A.Robinson,

¶10

Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1 & R2

¶11

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

¶12

PRAYER :-

¶13

For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.296 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 petitioners and the learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.

¶16

The petitioners apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences under sections 294(b) and 323 of I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, of I.P.C., in Crime No.296 of 2019 on the file of the second respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶17

I went through the contents of the FIR. It is seen that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioners are running a nursery school and the children studying

¶18

1/2

¶19

CRL OP(MD). No.3820 of 2020

¶20

in the petitioners' school had caused nuisance to the defacto complainant. This appears to be the motive for the occurrence. The defacto complainant sustained only simply injuries. I am of the view that a quarrel of this nature has been given a communal colour.

¶21

The petitioners' counsel on instructions that the petitioners will take a demand draft for a sum of Rs.5,000/favouring the defacto complainant and enclose the same along with the surrender petition. The Court below shall take steps to hand over the same to the defacto complainant through the respondent police. Of course this is without prejudice to the petitioners defence in the trial.

¶22

Subject to these condition, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned PCR Court, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District, and on their executing 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 Court concerned and on further condition that the petitioners shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation. The petitioners shall comply with the conditions stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C scrupulously.

¶23

The petitioners appear before the concerned Court within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed.

sd/-

28/02/2020

/ TRUE COPY /

/ /2020

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

¶29

Madurai - 625 023.

¶30

¶31

THE JUDGE, PCR COURT, SRIVILLIPUTHUR, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.

¶32

THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

¶33

ARUPPUKOTTAI SUB DIVISION, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.

¶34

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

¶35

THIRUZULI POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.

¶36

THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶37

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶38

+1 CC to M/s.M.PRABU, Advocate ( SR-4465[I] dated 28/02/2020 )

¶39

ORDER IN

¶40

CRL OP(MD) No.3820 of 2020

¶41

Date :28/02/2020

¶42

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ MS/PN/SAR-3/05.03.2020/2P.6C

¶43

2/2

Nandhini v. The Deputy Superintendent of police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nandhini v. The Deputy Superintendent 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

J.Joel Johnson Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

R.Kumar, S/O.Rangasamy Naidu Vs the Inspector of Police

Mohamed Anees Vs State Rep by

Seetha @ Seethalakshmi Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Purushothaman Vs the State Rep.by

S.Pandiyan Vs the State Represented by Its