Dismissed

Pothiskumar @ Sabari v. the State Rep by

Madras HC17 Aug 2021CRL OP/14594/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Section 439 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail, the petitioner was charged with culpable homicide, attempt to murder, and causing death under IPC. The High Court dismissed the bail application due to the gravity of the offence involving the death of four persons.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail sought by the petitioner under Section 439 CrPC was denied and the Criminal Original Petition was dismissed.

Pothiskumar @ Sabari Vs the State Rep by — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Tuesday, the Seventeenth day of August Two Thousand Twenty One

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.14594 of 2021

¶7

POTHISKUMAR @ SABARI [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]

¶8

¶9

THE STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

¶10

CHENNIMALAI POLICE STATION, ERODE DISTRICT (CR NO.227/2021)

¶11

For Petitioner : M/S.C.RAMKUMAR Advocate

¶12

For Respondent : MR.A.GOPINATH, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶13

PETITION FOR BAIL 439 Cr.P.C.

¶14

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶15

The petitioner who was arrested on 27.06.2021 for the alleged offence under Section 328, 307 and 302 IPC in Crime No.227 of 2021, seeks Anticipatory bail.

¶16

The case of the prosecution is that on 26.06.2021 at about 7.30 am, the petitioner / A2, on instructions of A1, had gone to the house of the defacto complainant for COVID-19 checkup and in furtherance of the same, he had given unnamed black colour tablets to the defacto complainant, her father, her mother and one Kuppal and thereafter they had consumed the said tablets, due to which, all the four persons had died.

¶17

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) submitted that A1 had borrowed money from the defacto complainant and had failed to repay the same and further the daughter of the defacto complainant had also abused the A1 for non payment of the borrowed amount. Therefore, in order wreck vengeance against the defacto complainant's family, A1 engaged the petitioner and handed over the poisonous tablets to the petitioner to distribute the same to the family members of the defacto complainant and after consuming those poisonous tablets, the defacto

¶18

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

¶19

complainant and his family members were died. Hence, the learned Government Advocate vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶20

In view of the submission made by the learned Government

¶21

Advocate, further considering the nature and gravity of the offence, whereby four persons had lost their life, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, this Criminal Original petition is dismissed.

¶22

-sd/-

¶23

17/08/2021

¶24

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

¶25

TRUE COPY

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENNIMALAI POLICE STATION, ERODE DISTRICT

¶29

2 THE SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON, COIMBATORE.

¶30

3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶31

+1CC to M/S.C.RAMKUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.8663

CRL OP.14594/2021

Date :17/08/2021

CSK 26/08/2021

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

Pothiskumar @ Sabari v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pothiskumar @ Sabari v. the 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

N.Navin @ Navinkumar Vs State Rep.by

Anbalagan Vs the State Rep. by

S.Thiyagarajan Vs the Inspector of Police

N.Nagarajan Vs the State Rep by Its

M.Vanitha Vs N.Prabhu

Rajasekar Vs State Rep.by