Allowed

Pitchai Muthu v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC25 Mar 2021CRL OP(MD)/4606/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, upon considering an anticipatory bail application filed by Pitchai Muthu in a rent dispute case involving IPC offences, granted bail subject to specific conditions including surety execution and adherence to court orders.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail subject to execution of a bond with two sureties for Rs.10,000 each, appearance before the Judicial Magistrate within two weeks, and abide by specified behavioral

Pitchai Muthu Vs The Inspector of Police — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.4606 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Date : 25/03/2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

CRL OP(MD). No.4606 of 2021

¶7

Pitchai Muthu

¶8

... Petitioner/A2

¶9

Vs State Rep.by The Inspector of Police, Natham Police Station, Dindigul District. Crime No.75/2021.

¶10

... Respondent/Complainant

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arjun, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶12

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

¶13

PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime no. 75 of 2021on the file of the respondent Police.

¶14

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶15

The petitioner, who is arrayed as A2, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 387 and 506(ii) of IPC, in Crime No.75 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶16

2.The case of the prosecution is that A1 is the landlord and the defacto complainant is a tenant. When A1 asked the defacto complainant to pay rent amount, the defacto complainant refused to pay the same. Thereafter, the defacto complainant has lodged the present complaint that the petitioner and others were said to have threatened him with dire consequences and the same has been registered by the respondent Police in Crime No.75 of 2021 based on the direction given by the Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C..

¶17

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent.

¶18

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

¶19

1/3

¶20

CRL OP(MD). No.4606 of 2021

¶21

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that due to previous enmity, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that A1 has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶22

5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that due to rent dispute, the occurrence said to have taken place and there is no previous case pending against the petitioner.

¶23

6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that due to rent dispute, the occurrence said to have taken place and there is no previous case pending against the petitioner and A1 has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶24

7.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or his appearance, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Natham, Dindigul District, on condition that the petitioner shall execute 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 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:

¶25

(a)the petitioner 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;

¶26

(b)the petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

(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;

¶30

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

¶31

2/3

¶32

CRL OP(MD). No.4606 of 2021

¶33

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

¶34

sd/25/03/2021 / TRUE COPY / / /2021 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶35

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.

¶36

¶37

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NATHAM, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. 2 DO-THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NATHAM POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

¶38

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

¶39

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.4606 of 2021 Date :25/03/2021 VSG MS/PN/30.03.2021/3P.5C

¶40

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

¶41

3/3

Pitchai Muthu v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pitchai Muthu 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

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

Murugan Vs The Sub Inspector of Police

Ranjithkumar Vs The Inspector of Police