Allowed

P.Kumar @ Rajkumar v. the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

Madras HC28 Aug 2020CRL RC/646/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court set aside an order sentencing petitioner for breach of a bond for good behaviour executed under Section 110 Cr.P.C., holding such bond does not attract Sections 120 and 122 Cr.P.C. Petitioner granted release.

What did the court decide?

Detention order dated 20.06.2020 set aside; Criminal Revision allowed; Connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition closed; Petitioner directed to be released from custody.

P.Kumar @ Rajkumar Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 28.08.2020

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N. PRAKASH

¶5

Crl.R.C. No.646 of 2020 & Crl.M.P. No.4765 of 2020

¶6

P. Kumar @ Rajkumar Petitioner
vs.
1 The State of Tamil Nadu
represented by the Executive Magistrate/
Revenue Divisional Officer
Ponneri Taluk
Tiruvallur District
2 The Tahsildar
Ponneri Taluk
Tiruvallur District
3 The Inspector of Police
E-3 Minjur Police Station
Tiruvallur District
Respondents
Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401
Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the detention order dated
20.06.2020 passed against the revision petitioner in
Na.Kaa.No.642/2020/Aa/(1) on the file of the first respondent
under Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C.
For petitioner Mr. C.K.M. Appaji
For respondents Mrs. P. Kritika Kamal
Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)
- - - - -
ORDER

¶7

This criminal revision has been preferred challenging the order dated 20.06.2020 passed by the first respondent sentencing the petitioner under Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C. to undergo imprisonment till 02.09.2020 and to remit the surety amount of Rs.5,000/- in a nationalised bank.

¶8

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

¶9

2 Heard Mr.C.K.M. Appaji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. P. Kritika Kamal, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents.

¶10

3 It is the case of the first respondent that the petitioner executed a bond for good behaviour under Section 110 Cr.P.C. in M.C.No.57 of 2020 on 02.03.2020 and thereafter, the petitioner was involved in a case in Minjur P.S. Cr.No.1789 of 2020 under Section 392 IPC on 03.06.2020 and hence, was liable to be sentenced under Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C. for breach of bond.

¶11

4 A perusal of the bond dated 02.03.2020 executed by the petitioner shows that it was executed for good behaviour under Section 110 Cr.P.C. for the breach of which, he cannot be convicted and sentenced under Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C., since a conviction and sentence is possible only in a case where there was breach of bond executed under Section 107 Cr.P.C. for keeping peace.

¶12

In view of the above and also by following the earlier order passed by this Court in Muthu @ Muthuraja vs. State¹ , the impugned order dated 20.06.2020 passed by the first respondent in M.C. No.57 of 2020 is set aside and as a sequel, this criminal revision stands allowed. Connected Crl.M.P. stands closed. The petitioner is directed to be released from custody, if not required in connection with any other case. Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar cad To 1 The Executive Magistrate/ Revenue Divisional Officer Ponneri Taluk Tiruvallur District 2 The Tahsildar Ponneri Taluk Tiruvallur District 1 Crl.O.P. No.20997 of 2016 decided on 02.11.2016

¶13

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

¶14

3 The Inspector of Police
E-3 Minjur Police Station
Tiruvallur District
4 The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras
Copy to
1.The Section Officer,
Criminal Section,
High Court,
Madras.
2.The District Collector,
Thiruvallur.
3.The Superintendent,
Central prison,Puzhal,
Chennai.
4.The District Superintendent of Police,
Thiruvallur.
5.The Superintendent of Police,
Ponneri.
Crl.R.C. No.646 of 2020
SSI(CO)
GS(28/08/2020)

¶15

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

P.Kumar @ Rajkumar v. the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Kumar @ Rajkumar v. the State of Tamilnadu 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

Sivakumar, Aged 44 Years, Vs State Rep. by

State by Vs Suresh @ Palanivelu

Manikandan Vs the State Rep by Its

Durgadevi Vs State Rep.by

Panneerselvam Vs State Rep.by

K.Dhanasekaran Vs State Rep. by