Allowed

Murugan v. State Rep by

Madras HC10 Nov 2021CRL MP/10829/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 389(1) CrPC seeking suspension of sentence and bail for the petitioner, convicted of assault causing death. The court granted bail with strict conditions including execution of a bond, sureties with identity proofs, and daily/monthly appearances at the court or police station in view of pending appeal and imprisonment duration.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of imprisonment suspended and bail granted on conditions of bond with two sureties, identity verification, and daily/monthly appearance before trial court or police.

Murugan Vs State Rep by — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 10.11.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA

¶7

Crl.M.P.No.10829 of 2021

¶8

in Crl.A.No.111 of 2019

¶9

Murugan .. Petitioner/Accused

¶10

Vs.

¶11

State represented by The Inspector of Police, Jolarpet Police Station, Vellore District. (Crime No.206 of 2016) .. Respondent/Complainant

¶12

Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C., to suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioner by judgment and order dated 12.02.2019 passed in S.C.No.66 of 2017 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Vellore District and to enlarge the petitioner on bail pending disposal of the appeal.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.E.Kannadasan

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶15

(Made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.)

¶16

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed seeking to suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioner by judgment and order dated 12.02.2019 passed in S.C.No.66 of 2017 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Vellore District and to enlarge the petitioner on bail pending disposal of the appeal.

¶17

The petitioner, who was an accused in S.C.No.66 of 2017 before the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Vellore, was

¶18

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

¶19

convicted and sentenced as follows on 12.02.2019:

¶20

S.No.	Provisio convicte	n d	under	which Sentence
1	Section	341	IPC	One month simple imprisonment.
2	Section	302	IPC	Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment.
3	Section	397	IPC	Seven years rigorous imprisonment.
4	Section IPC	20	1 r/w	302 Three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment.

¶21

The aforesaid sentences are ordered to run concurrently.

¶22

Challenging the above conviction and sentences, the petitioner has filed Crl.A.No.111 of 2019 along with the instant miscellaneous petition seeking suspension of sentence and bail.

¶23

4.Heard Mr.E.Kannadasan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State.

¶24

5.It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner herein along with one Sasikumar (juvenile) had picked up a quarrel with the deceased Sathiyamoorthi and is said to have assaulted him with a wooden log on 01.04.2016 and had caused his death. It is reported that Sasikumar (juvenile), who was also arrayed as an accused, has died.

¶25

6.The petitioner has raised substantial grounds in the appeal, which require detailed appraisal. Moreover, the petitioner has been in incarceration from 12.02.2019. Further, the appeal is not likely to be taken up in the near future. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the relief of suspension of sentence and bail.

¶26

7.Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed and the sentence of imprisonment is suspended and bail is granted to the petitioner on the following conditions:

¶27

(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/-, with two sureties, of whom, one should be a blood relative, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Vellore District;

¶28

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

¶29

(ii) The sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the trial Court may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity; and

¶30

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the respondent/police everyday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of four weeks and thereafter, the petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on the first working day of every month at 10.30 a.m. until the disposal of the appeal and if he is not able to appear before the trial Court on any day, he shall make arrangements to file an application under Section 317 Cr.P.C. and shall appear before the trial Court on any other day in lieu of the date of his absence, as directed by the trial Court.

¶31

-sd/-

¶32

10/11/2021

¶33

This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned

¶34

TRUE COPY

¶35

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

¶36

¶37

1 THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT SESSIONS JUDGE, VELLORE DISTRICT

¶38

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶39

3 INSPECTOR OF POLICE, JOLARPET POLICE STATION, VELLORE DISTRICT.

¶40

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

¶41

4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶42

+1 C.C. to M/S. E.KANNADASAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.No.12604

¶43

in CRL MP.10829/2021

¶44

in Crl.A.No.111/2019 Date :10/11/2021

¶45

From 7.2.2001 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the BAIL/Anti.BAIL Orders in this format

¶46

APN 12/11/2021

¶47

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

Murugan v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murugan v. State Rep by

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

Mrs.D.Ramya, Age 26 Years, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Sridevi Vs the Additional Chief Secretary to Government

D.Ramya Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by Its

Radhamani Vs the State Rep by

Kumar Vs State Rep by

Gunashankari Vs the Secretary to the Government