Allowed

Subramani v. the State by

Madras HC27 Jan 2021CRL MP/16965/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted suspension of sentence and bail to a petitioner convicted of murder and attempted criminal intimidation. This decision followed an appraisal showing substantial grounds in the appeal and the frequent adjournment of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of sentence and bail granted subject to execution of bond with two sureties and strict appearance before the trial court.

Subramani Vs the State by — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 27.01.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

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

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM

¶7

Crl.M.P.No. 16965 of 2019

¶8

in Crl.A.No. 788 of 2019

¶9

Subramani .. Petitioner

¶10

¶11

The State by The Inspector of Police, Uthanapalli Police Station, Hosur.

¶12

Crime No. 80 of 2015 .. Respondent

¶13

Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. to suspend the sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahilar Court, Krishnagiri, in S.C.No. 111 of 2016 dated 22.06.2018 and enlarge him on bail pending disposal of the above appeal.

¶14

For Petitioner : Ms.S.Santha Kumari

¶15

For Respondent : Mr.K.Prabhakar

¶16

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶17

ORDER

¶18

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

¶19

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been preferred seeking to suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioner by judgment and order dated 22.06.2018 in S.C.No. 111 of 2016 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahilar Court, Krishnagiri and to enlarge the petitioner on bail till the disposal of the appeal.

¶20

The petitioner, who was an accused in S.C.No. 111 of 2016 before the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahilar Court, Krishnagiri, was convicted and sentenced as follows:

¶21

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

¶22

S.No.	Provision which conv	under icted		Se	nten	ce
1	Section 302	IPC	Rigorous and to	impr pa	ison y	ment for life a fine of
			Rs.1,000/ undergo imprisonm	-, six ent.	in mo	default, to nths rigorous
2	Section IPC	506(ii)	Six imprisonm	mon ent	ths and	rigorous to pay a fine
			of Rs.50 undergo imprisonm	0/-, two ent.	in mo	default, to nths rigorous

¶23

The aforesaid sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

¶24

Challenging the above conviction and sentences, the petitioner has filed Crl.A.No. 788 of 2019 along with the instant miscellaneous petition seeking suspension of sentence and bail.

¶25

Heard Ms.S.Santha Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Prabhakar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State.

¶26

It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner in an inebriated state, demanded more money for drinking from his wife and when she refused, the petitioner stabbed her on the back-side of the neck and brutally attacked her, resulting in her death.

¶27

The petitioner is under incarceration from the date of his arrest– 26.02.2015. The eye witness to this case is P.W.1, who is the daughter of the accused, who in her cross-examination has stated that she had gone to her grandfather's house which is before the incident. Thus, the petitioner has raised substantial grounds in the appeal which require detailed appraisal. 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.

¶28

Accordingly, the relief of suspension of sentence and bail is granted to the petitioner on the following conditions:-

¶29

(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 Judicial Magistrate No.2, Hosur;

¶30

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

¶31

(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
(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the trial Court
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.
-sd/-
27/01/2021
This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried
into execution by all concerned
TRUE COPY
Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.)
High Court, Madras - 600 104.
TO
1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.2,
HOSUR.
2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
KRISHNAGIRI [FOR INFORMATION]
3 THE SESSIONS JUDGE,
FAST TRACK MAHILA COURT,
KRISHNAGIRI.
4 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PRISON,
CENTRAL PRISON, VELLORE.

¶32

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

¶33

5 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶34

6 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, UTHANNAPALLI POLICE STATION, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT

¶35

+1C.C. to M/S.M.G.UDAYA SHANKAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR NO.886

¶36

Order
in
CRL MP.16965/2019
in
CRL A.788/2019
Date :27/01/2021
From 7.2.2001 the Registry is issuing certified
copies of the BAIL/Anti.BAIL Orders in this format
MK:29/01/2021

¶37

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

Subramani v. the State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subramani v. the State 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

D.Ramya Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by Its

Elumalai Vs the Commissioner of Police

Sabir Vs the Superintendent of Police

Rajasekar Vs the Inspector of Police

Alagarasan Vs the Superintendent of Police

A.Manjula Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Police