Allowed

Kiruthika v. State Rep.by

Madras HC7 Jul 2021CRL MP/2861/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to a petitioner convicted of murder by substituting Life Imprisonment with Life Imprisonment on Bail. The Court held that substantial grounds in the pending appeal and delay in hearing warranted suspension of sentence, imposing strict reporting conditions.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of imprisonment suspended; petitioner granted bail on bond with sureties, reporting conditions, and restriction to move outside district.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 07.07.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN

¶7

Crl.M.P.No.2861 of 2021 in Crl.A.No.112 of 2021 Kiruthika .. Petitioner/A2 Vs. State through its The Inspector of Police, Perumannalur Police Station, Tiruppur District. (Crime No.281 of 2017) .. Respondent/Respondent

¶8

Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. to suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioner made in S.C.No. 132 of 2017 dated 02.03.2019 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur and release the petitioner on bail pending disposal of the appeal.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mrs.S.Sumathy

¶10

For Respondent : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj

¶11

Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶12

ORDER

¶13

(Order of the Court was made by R.PONGIAPPAN, J.)

¶14

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been preferred seeking to suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioner, by judgment and order dated 02.03.2019 in S.C.No. 132 of 2017 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur and to enlarge the petitioner on bail till the disposal of the appeal.

¶15

The petitioner, who was arrayed as the 2nd accused in S.C.No. 132 of 2017 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, was convicted of offence under Section 302 r/w 109 IPC and sentenced to undergo Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.

¶16

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

¶17

Challenging the above conviction and sentence, the petitioner has filed Crl.A.No.112 of 2021 along with the instant miscellaneous petition seeking suspension of sentence and bail.

¶18

Heard, Mrs.S.Sumathy, learned counsel for the petitioner/A2 and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent/State.

¶19

It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner/A2 and the other accused in this case were in love with each other during school days and thereafter, the petitioner/A2 was married to one Kesavan viz., the deceased. There were frequent quarrels between the petitioner/A2 and the deceased. Since the illicit relationship having by the petitioner/A2 was objected to by the deceased, both the accused decided to do away the deceased. On the date of occurrence, the second accused closed the door of the house without locking it and the first accused went inside the house and murdered the deceased by dropping the stone on his head, thereby causing his death.

¶20

6.According to the prosecution, the occurrence was witnessed by the minor child of the deceased viz., P.W.3. P.Ws.8 and 10 said to have seen the accused coming out of the house of the deceased. Apart from this evidence, there is no evidence on the part of the prosecution to link the accused with the crime.

¶21

7.There are arguable points involved in the appeal and the petitioner is undergoing incarceration from 02.03.2019. 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/A2 is entitled to the relief of suspension of sentence and bail.

¶22

Accordingly, sentence of imprisonment alone is suspended and bail is granted to the petitioner/A2 on the following conditions:

¶23

(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 learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur.

¶24

(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

¶25

(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 she is not able to appear before the trial Court on any day, she shall make arrangements to file an application under Section 317 Cr.P.C. and shall

¶26

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

¶27

appear before the trial Court on any other day in lieu of the date of her absence, as directed by the trial Court.

¶28

-sd/07/07/2021

¶29

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

¶30

TRUE COPY

¶31

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.)
High Court, Madras - 600 104.
TO
1 THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
TIRUPPUR.
2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
PERUMANALLUR POLICE STATION,
TIRUPPUR DISTRICT.
3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
4 THE SUPERINTENDENT,
CENTRAL PRISON, COIMBATORE.
+1 C.C. to M/S. S.SUMATHY Advocate on payment of necessary charges
SR.NO. 7167
Order
in
CRL MP.2861/2021
in
CRL A.112/2021
Date :07/07/2021
From 7.2.2001 the Registry is issuing certified
copies of the BAIL/Anti.BAIL Orders in this format

¶32

MN-08/07/2021

¶33

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

Kiruthika v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kiruthika 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

M.Kannan Vs C.Sundarrajan

Mahalakshmi Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

M.Kabilan Vs the Stateof Tamil Nadu, Rep.by Its

Keerthiraj Vs State Rep.by

Lakshmi Vs The Director General of Police and

Ranjith Kumar Vs State Rep.by