Dismissed

Nallammal v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC27 Sept 2021CRL OP(MD)/10834/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the petitioner contended she was an innocent target in a family property dispute where the victim died after hospital discharge. The court rejected the plea, noting the death was caused by battle injuries sustained by the accused while the victim was discharged.

What did the court decide?

Petition for anticipatory bail dismissed. Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

Nallammal Vs The Inspector of Police — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

CRL OP(MD)No.10834 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT (Criminal Jurisdiction) Date : 27.09.2021 PRESENT

¶3

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice B.PUGALENDHI

¶4

CRL OP(MD)No.10834 of 2021

¶5

Nallammal

¶6

... Petitioner/Accused No.2

¶7

¶8

The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Kattuputhur Police Station, Kattuputhur, Trichy District. (Crime No.204/2021) ... Respondent/Complainant Anandhan ... Petitioner/Deceased Defacto-Complainant's son

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.K.ARUNRAJ, Advocate

¶10

For Respondent : Mr.T.SENTHILKUMAR, Additional Public Prosecutor(crl.side)

¶11

For Intervenor : Mr.PRAGADESH KUMAR, Advocate

¶12

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C

¶13

PRAYER :-

¶14

For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.204 of 2021 on the file of the respondent Police.

¶15

ORDER : The Court made the following order :

¶16

The petitioner apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 324, 307, 506(ii) IPC @ 302 IPC, in connection with the case in Crime No.204 of 2021, has filed this application for anticipatory bail.

¶17

2.The victim in this case is the younger brother of the first accused. The second accused / petitioner herein is the wife of the first accused and the third accused is their son. There was a dispute owing to a partition among the family properties and in this regard, there was a scuffle and the victim was assaulted by the accused persons. Hence the complaint. Pending the complaint, the victim died and therefore, the offence was altered.

¶18

3.Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent woman and has not committed any offence, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

1/3

¶20

CRL OP(MD)No.10834 of 2021

¶21

but a false case has been foisted as against her. It is a dispute among the family members. The occurrence had taken place on 09.06.2021 and the victim was discharged from the hospital on 14.06.2021. Since the victim was discharged from the hospital, the first accused, who was arrested, was enlarged on bail on 21.06.2021. While so, on 06.07.2021, the victim died due to heart attack. But the respondent police has altered the charge to the offence under Section 302 IPC. Therefore, the learned Counsel prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶22

4.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent submitted that the petitioner was also present in the scene of occurrence. She has assaulted the victim with a wooden log on his chest and caused injury on the vital part of the victim.

¶23

5.Learned Counsel for the intervenor submitted that the victim has suffered three major injuries and his lung was also collapsed. Though the victim was discharged from the hospital on 14.06.2021, he died only due to the injury caused by the petitioner and the other accused. He has also relied upon the postmortem certificate of the deceased.

¶24

6.Admittedly, the deceased was discharged from the hospital on 14.06.2021 and thereafter, on 06.07.2021, he died. It is the specific case of the intervenor that the deceased died due to the injuries caused by the accused and he has also relied upon the postmortem certificate of the deceased. There are specific overt acts available as against the petitioner. Even though the petitioner has relied upon the grant of bail to the first accused by the Sessions Court, the fact remains that the bail was granted to the first accused considering the period of incarceration and also the fact that the victim was discharged from the hospital. But after the discharge from the hospital, the victim died.

¶25

7.In the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed.

¶26

sd/27/09/2021 / TRUE COPY / / /2021 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶27

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.

¶28

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

¶29

2/3

¶30

CRL OP(MD)No.10834 of 2021

¶31

¶32

1.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KATTUPUTHUR POLICE STATION, KATTUPUTHUR, TRICHY DISTRICT.

¶33

2.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶34

ORDER

¶35

¶36

CRL OP(MD) No.10834 of 2021 Date :27/09/2021 SA/VR/SAR.3/30.09.2021/3P/3C

¶37

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

¶38

3/3

Nallammal v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nallammal v. The Inspector of Police

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

Rajesh Vs The Inspector of Police

M.Eswari Vs The Inspector of Police

M. Muthukutty Vs The inspector of Police

Senthil Kumar Vs The Inspector of Police

P.Jeyaseelan Vs The Inspector of Police

S.Gowrisankar Vs The Inspector of Police