Allowed

Munichandira v. the State Rep by

Madras HC24 Aug 2021CRL OP/15146/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C for offences under Sections 294-b and 307 IPC involving assault on a wife and defacto complainant, the Court, noting the discharged status of the injured person and lack of prior cases, granted bail with strict conditions, including reporting to police and penalties for absconding.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail by executing a bond for Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to strict daily reporting and prohibitory conditions.

Munichandira Vs the State Rep by — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 24.08.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.15146 of 2021

¶6

Munichandira ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State rep by, The Inspector of Police, Kelamangalam Police Station, (Crime No.224 of 2021) ... Respondent

¶9

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C prayed to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.224 of 2021 pending investigation on the file of the respondent.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thirumoorthy

¶11

For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The petitioner who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 26.07.2021 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 307 of IPC, in Crime No.224 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶14

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had assaulted his wife and the same was questioned by the defacto complainant, as a result of which, the petitioner had assaulted the defacto complainant and caused injuries. Hence, the complaint.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not involved in the offence and he has been falsely implicated. He further submits that he is in jail from 26.07.2021. Hence he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶16

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the injured person has been discharged from the hospital.

¶17

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

¶18

Considering the fact that the injured person has been discharged from the hospital and there is no previous case pending as against the petitioner and also considering the period of incarceration suffered by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶19

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing 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. Denkanikottai, and on further condition that:

¶20

(a)the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

¶21

(b)the petitioner shall report before the respondent police, daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders;

¶22

(c)the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

¶23

(d)the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

¶24

(e)on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560]; and;

¶25

(f)if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

¶26

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

¶27

TRUE COPY

¶28

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.)

¶29

High Court, Madras - 600 104.

¶30

¶31

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE DENKANIKOTTAI.

¶32

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE KRISHNAGIRI [FOR INFORMATION]

¶33

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

¶34

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KELAMANGALAM POLICE STATION

¶35

4 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, SALEM

¶36

5 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶37

CC to M/S R.THIRUMOORTHY Advocate on payment of necessary charges

¶38

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

Munichandira v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munichandira 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakshmipriya Vs State Rep by

Manikandan Vs State Rep.by

Arumugam Vs State Rep by

G.Rajeev @ Raj Vs the State Rep by

A.Kolanchi Vs State Rep by

Elumalai Vs State Rep by