Partly allowed

Rathinasabapathi v. State Rep. by

Madras HC23 Nov 2021CRL MP/6093/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court suspended the sentence of imprisonment and granted bail to three petitioners in a murder/forgery/cheating case convicted by the Sessions Judge and acquitted by the Magistrate, pending consideration of their revision petition. The court dismissed the separate plea for exemption from surrender.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of imprisonment suspended; petitioners enlarged on bail with bond and sureties; plea for exemption from surrender dismissed.

Rathinasabapathi Vs State Rep. by — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Tuesday, the Twenty Third day of November Two Thousand Twenty One

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶6

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NOs.6093 AND 6094 of 2021

¶7

IN CRL.RC.NO.360 of 2021

¶8

1 RATHINASABAPATHI [ PETITIONERS

¶9

2 PONNUSAMY IN CRL.MP.NOs.6093&6094/2021] 3 R.KRISHNAMOORTHI

¶10

¶11

1 STATE REP. BY [ 1^st RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, IN CRL.MP.NOs.6093&6094/2021] DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, NAMAKKAL. (CRIME NO.44/2004)

¶12

2 BOOPATHY

¶13

[2^nd RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT IN CRL.MP.NOs.6093&6094/2021]

¶14

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the Memorandum of Grounds in CRL.R.C.NO.360 of 2021 on the file of the High Court, the High Court will be pleased to

¶15

(i)Suspend the sentences of imprisonment passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Namakkal vide Judgment dated 06.01.2021 in C.A.No.17/2019 and enlarge them on bail, pending disposal of Crl.R.C.No.360/2021 (IN CRL.MP.NO.6093/2021)

¶16

(ii)Exempt them from surrendering before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Rasipuram in CC.NO.35/2008 and thus render justice. (CRL.MP.NO.6094/2021 IN CRL.RC.NO.360/2021)

¶17

Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the Memorandum of Grounds in CRL.R.C.NO.360 of 2021 on the file of the High Court and upon hearing the arguments of MR.T.R.SIVARAM,Advocate for the Petitioners (IN BOTH PETITIONS)and of MR.S.SUGENDRAN Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) for 1^st Respondent (IN BOTH PETITIONS) and of M/S.M.ELANGO for 2^nd Respondent (IN BOTH PETITIONS) the court made the following order:-

¶18

Criminal miscellaneous petition in Crl.MP.No.6093 of 2021 is filed seeking to suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioners in C.A.No.17 of 2019 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Judge, Namakkal, convicting and sentencing the petitioners to undergo

¶19

3 years imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment for each of the offences under Sections 120(B), 467 and 419 r/w 120(B) IPC, which reversed the acquittal judgment made by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram, Namakkal District in C.C.No.35 of 2008. The Crl.MP.No.6094 of 2021 is filed to exempt the petitioners from surrendering before the Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners along with yet another accused was tried in CC.No.35 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram for the offences under Sections 120(b), 467, 419 r/w.120(b) IPC. The trial Court had acquitted the accused, as against the order of acquittal the second respondent/defacto complainant had preferred the Crl.A.No.17 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal. The appellate Court by an order dated 06.01.2021 reversed the order of acquittal and convicted the petitioners.

¶21

The learned counsel would further submit that the appellate Court has not properly appreciated the evidence available on record and there is every fair chances for the petitioners to be acquitted in the revision petition. He would further submit that the coaccused/A4 in this case had preferred Crl.RC.No.325 of 2021 before this Court and this Court by an order dated 13.05.2021 in Crl.MP.No.5925 of 2021 in Crl.RC.No.325 of 2021 had suspended the substantive sentence of imprisonment on condition.

¶22

The learned Government Advocate (crl. side) appearing for the first respondent would submit that the appellate Court has appreciated the entire evidence had given elaborate reason for convicting and sentencing the accused.

¶23

The learned counsel for the second respondent/defacto complainant would submit that the appellate Court has not properly appreciated the evidence, however, the appellate Court after duly appreciating the evidence had reversed the order of acquittal and found the petitioners guilty.

¶24

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, there are arguable points, which requires consideration in the revision and the revision cannot be taken up for hearing in the near future, this Court is inclined to suspend the sentence imposed by the Court below and release the petitioners on bail.

¶25

Accordingly, this miscellaneous petition in Crl.MP.No.6093 of 2021 is ordered and the sentence imposed by the Court below vide judgment dated 06.01.2021 in C.A.No.17 of 2019 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal, is hereby suspended and the petitioners are directed to be enlarged on bail, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/(Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Namakkal District and the petitioners shall appear before the said

¶26

Court on the first working day of every English Calender month at 10.30 A.M. until further orders.

¶27

In view of the order passed in Crl.MP.No.6093 of 2021, the Crl.MP.No.6094 of 2021 seeking exemption from surrendering the accused is dismissed.

¶28

-sd/-

¶29

23/11/2021

¶30

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

¶31

TRUE COPY

¶32

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

¶33

¶34

1 THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, NAMAKKAL.

¶35

2 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, RASIPURAM.

¶36

3 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NAMAKKAL [FOR INFORMATION]

¶37

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, NAMAKKAL, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT.

¶38

5 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶39

+1C.C. to M/S.T.R.SIVARAM Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.13303

¶40

Order

¶41

in CRL.MP.NOs.6093&6094/2021 AND CRL.R.C.360/2021 Date :23/11/2021

¶42

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

¶43

CSK 25/11/2021

¶44

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

Rathinasabapathi v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rathinasabapathi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Prakash Vs S.Karunakaran

Sathish @ Aruppu Sathish Vs Executive Magistrate

Lakshmanan Vs State Rep by

Indhu Priya Vs Sivakumar

Guruvammal, Vs Visveswaran

T.Ravindran, Vs S.Anandhavalli