Allowed

Murugan v. The Sub Inspector of Police

Madras HC25 Mar 2021CRL OP(MD)/4584/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this anticipatory bail petition, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court considered allegations of assault and abuse. Weighing the fact that the injured party was discharged, the Court granted bail subject to strict conditions including daily reporting, execution of a bond, and restrictions on tampering with evidence or absconding.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail upon execution of a bond for Rs. 10,000 each with sureties by reporting daily.

Murugan Vs The Sub Inspector of Police — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.4584 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶4

Date : 25/03/2021

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶7

CRL OP(MD). No.4584 of 2021

¶8

Murugan

¶9

Karuppasamy

¶10

Kakka @ dhines

¶11

... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3

¶12

¶13

The State rep.by, The Sub Inspector of Police, Thiruchuli Police Station, Virudhunagar District. Crime No.40/2021.

¶14

... Respondent/Complainant

¶15

For Petitioners: Mr.Dharani.A., Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶16

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

¶17

PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime no. 40 of 2021 on the file of the respondent Police.

¶18

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶19

The petitioners, who are arrayed as Accused Nos.1 to 3, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) of IPC, in Crime No.40 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶20

2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant went to hotel at Thiruchuli to buy food. When the petitioners were standing at the entrance of the hotel, the defacto complainant requested them to give way, due to which, there was a wordy quarrel between the petitioners and the defacto complainant. Thereafter, the petitioners were said to have abused the defacto complainant by using filthy language and also attacked him with stick and caused injuries. Hence, the present complaint.

¶21

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent.

¶22

1/3

¶23

CRL OP(MD). No.4584 of 2021

¶24

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, they seek anticipatory bail.

¶25

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

¶26

6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the petitioners without any provocation, had attacked the defacto complainant with stick and the injured person has already been discharged from the hospital, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

¶27

7.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or their appearance, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchuli, Virudhunagar District, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two Sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent Police or to the Police Officer, who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

¶28

(a)the petitioners and 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;

¶29

(b)the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation.

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

(e)on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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;

¶33

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

¶34

2/3

¶35

CRL OP(MD). No.4584 of 2021

¶36

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

¶37

sd/25/03/2021 / TRUE COPY /

¶38

/ /2021 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. vsg 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.

¶39

¶40

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUCHULI, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT. 2 DO THROUGH: THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VIRUDHUNAGAR AT SRIVILLIPUTHUR. 3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRUCHULI POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT. 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S.A.DHARANI, Advocate SR.No.2593 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.4584 of 2021 Date :25/03/2021 NR/PN(30.03.2021) 3P:6C

¶41

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

¶42

3/3

Murugan v. The Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murugan v. The Sub Inspector of Police

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

Stalin Vs The Inspector of Police

Balu @ Balamurugan Vs The Inspector of Police

Saravanankumar @ Saravanan Vs The Inspector of Police

Sagayaraj Vs The Inspector of Police

Ranjithkumar Vs The Inspector of Police

Pitchai Muthu Vs The Inspector of Police