Allowed

Karthick@Middle Aron Karthick v. the State Rep by

Madras HC15 Nov 2021CRL OP/21310/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal original petition sought bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C for the petitioner charged under Section 306 IPC. The petitioner had been in judicial custody for over 70 days. The Court, considering the period of incarceration and the completion of investigation, granted bail subject to strict conditions including daily police reporting.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail by executing a bond for Rs. 10,000 with two sureties each for Rs. 10,000 subject to conditions of daily reporting and no tampering with evidence.

Karthick@Middle Aron Karthick Vs the State Rep by — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 15.11.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.21310 of 2021

¶6

KARTHICK @ MIDDLE ARON KARTHICK

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

State by The Inspector of Police T12-Poonamallee Police Station Chennai (Crime No.1306 of 2021) ... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail concerned in Crime No.1306 of 2021 on the file of the Inspector of Police, T12Poonamallee Police station, Chennai.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sasikumar

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.N.S.Suganthan Government Advocate

¶13

ORDER

¶14

(The case has been heard through video conference)

¶15

The petitioner who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 05.09.2021 for the offences under Sections 174 Cr.P.C. @ Section 306 IPC in Crime No.1306 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶16

The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the Village Administrative Officer. On 04.09.2021, he lodged a complaint stating that a decomposed dead body was found in the house of the deceased. Initially, the case was registered under 174 Cr.P.C. Later, on investigation, it was found that the deceased and the petitioner were in living together relationship. Thereafter, since the petitioner refused to marry her, the deceased committed suicide by hanging. Hence, the case was altered into Section 306 IPC.

¶17

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

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner and the deceased are friends and the petitioner used to meet her at her residence and thereby, he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the petitioner has been suffering incarceration for more than 70 days from 05.09.2021. Hence he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶19

The learned Government Advocate raised objection stating that the deceased and the petitioner were in living together relationship. Thereafter, the petitioner refused to marry her and thereby, the deceased committed suicide by hanging.

¶20

Considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner and the fact that the investigation is almost completed, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶21

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-II, Poonamallee, and on further conditions that:

¶22

(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;

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

(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;

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

-sd/-

¶30

15/11/2021

¶31

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

¶32

TRUE COPY

¶33

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

¶34

¶35

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.II, POONAMALLEE.

¶36

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE THIRUVALLUR [FOR INFORMATION].

¶37

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, T12, PONNAMALLEE POLICE STATION, CHENNAI

¶38

4 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, PUZHAL, CHENNAI.

¶39

5 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶40

+1 CC to M/S.S.SASIKUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.12760

¶41

CRL OP.21310/2021

¶42

Date :15/11/2021 JPA 16/11/2021

¶43

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

Karthick@Middle Aron Karthick v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karthick@Middle Aron Karthick 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

C.Manivannan Vs State by

Ramesh Vs State Rep by

Rajkamal Vs State Rep by

Ramkumar Vs State Rep by

J.Rukmatheen Vs State Rep by

Govintharaj Vs State Rep by