Allowed

Vijay v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC20 Aug 2020CRL OP(MD)/7736/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition under CrPC 439, the Madurai Bench was inclined to grant bail to an accused implicated under Section 120(B) IPC for alleged murder, noting his late implicaton and period of incarceration, subject to strict conditions including residence and validity of absconding.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail by executing a bond for Rs.50,000 with two sureties, subject to specified conditions including fixed residence and prohibition of absconding.

Vijay Vs The Inspector of Police — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶4

Date : 20/08/2020

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶7

CRL OP(MD). No.7736 of 2020

¶8

Vijay ... Petitioner/Accused No.5

¶9

¶10

The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Aranthangi Police Station, Pudukkottai District

¶11

(Crime No. 1011 of 2020). ... Respondent/Complainant

¶12

For Petitioner : M/s. S.Muthalraj,

¶13

Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.M.Chandrasekaran, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶14

PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C.

¶15

PRAYER :-

¶16

For Bail in Crime No. 1011 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police

¶17

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶18

The petitioner/A5 herein was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 21.06.2020 for the alleged offences under Sections 109,120(B),302 and 324 of IPC.

¶19

The case of the prosecution is that there is a previous enmity between the the deceased Manikandan and A1 in this case. Prior to the occurrence there was a quarrel between them and on that motive A1 to A4 planned to murder the deceased and on the date of occurrence at about 08.00 pm., A1 to A4 in this case said to have attacked the deceased with aruval and caused his death. After the occurrence they have informed the same to A6 and he informed them https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to abscond and A7 in this case took A1 in his motor cycle and A5 in this case washed the blood strained in the scene of occurrence.

¶20

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the main allegations are against A1 to A4 and the petitioner herein only washed the blood strained in the scene of occurrence and he has been implicated only with the aid of 120(B) of IPC. He would further submit that the petitioner is in jail for nearly two months, hence he may be granted bail.

¶22

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that it is pre planned murder and due to previous enmity all the accused persons conspired together and committed the murder of the deceased. Investigation is also pending.

¶23

It is seen that A1 to A4 said to have attacked the deceased and caused his death. Sofar as this petitioner is concerned he only washed the blood strained in the scene of occurrence and no specific overt act attributed against him. It is also seen that his name does not found place in the First Information Report and he has been implicated with the aid of 120(B) of IPC.

¶24

6.Taking note of the above facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into consideration the period of incarceration, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

¶25

7.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi, Pudukottai District.

¶26

i) the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate/concerned court may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity

¶27

ii) the petitioner shall stay at Trichy and report before the Cantonment Police Station daily at 10.30 a.m until further orders.

¶28

iii)the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness.

¶29

iv) the petitioner shall not abscond during trial.

¶30

v)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 Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

vi) If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

¶34

sd/20/08/2020 / TRUE COPY / / /2020 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. 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.

¶35

¶36

1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ARANTHANGI, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT.
2. DO-THROUGH : THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT.
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, TRICHY.
4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ARANTHANGI POLICE STATION, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT.
5. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CANTONMENT POLICE STATION, TRICHY.
6. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1cc to Mr.Na.Palaniyandi, Advocate in SR.No.6030 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.7736 of 2020 Date :20/08/2020

¶37

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

¶38

TE/PN/SAR-II : 20/08/2020 : 3P/8C

Vijay v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay 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

Mohan Vs State Rep by

P.Sivagami Vs State Rep. by

Edwin Vs The Inspector of Police

S.Raju Vs the Superintendent of Police

Ramachandran Vs The Inspector of Police

Sheik Abdullah Vs The Inspector of Police