Allowed

Sukumar v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC30 Jun 2021CRL OP(MD)/8548/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench granted bail to the petitioner, an Advocate, accused of murder and other offences. Considering 63 days of incarceration and pending witness recording, the Court ordered release on personal bond and conditions including reporting and suspension of public employment.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on executing personal bond and a public bond conditioned on surrendering for recording statements and discontinuing public duties.

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

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.8548 of 2021

¶2

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

¶3

Date : 30/06/2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice A.A.NAKKIRAN

¶6

CRL OP(MD). No.8548 of 2021

¶7

Sukumar ... Petitioner/Accused No.6

¶8

¶9

State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Melur Police Station, Madurai District, (in Crime No.245/2021). ... Respondent/Complainant

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.Manickaraj.R., Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶11

PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C.

¶12

PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No.245/2021 on the file of the respondent Police

¶13

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶14

The petitioner/A6, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 28.04.2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 294(b), 302, 323, 427 and 506(ii) of I.P.C and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, in Crime No.245 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶15

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 24.02.2021, when the defacto complainant and his son were constructing shed in their vacant site near their house, A-1 along with other accused came there and there was a wordy quarrel, in which, the petitioner along with other accused attacked the deceased and caused his death. Hence, the complaint.

¶16

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an Advocate. In the FIR, there was a specific overt act against the petitioner and after investigation, it reveals that after the offence made out only, the petitioner went to the place of occurrence. He would further submit that the petitioner is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged

¶17

1/3

¶18

CRL OP(MD). No.8548 of 2021

¶19

by the prosecution and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he was in judicial custody for the past 63 days. Therefore, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶20

4.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) would submit that the petitioner is in judicial custody from 28.04.2021. He would further submit that investigation is pending and so far, the statement of 18 witnesses were recorded. However, he opposes to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶21

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that so far 18 witnesses recorded and also considering the period of incarceration of the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner on certain conditions.

¶22

6.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on executing his own bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) before the Jail Authority. The petitioner after his release shall surrender before the concerned Judicial Magistrate voluntarily on any working day within a period of one month from the date of resumption of regular work in the Subordinate Courts and execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur.

¶23

i)the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate/concerned court may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity

¶24

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

¶25

iii) the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.2,000/(Rupees two Thousand only) to the credit of Government of Tamil Nadu, CMPRF in IOB, Secretariat Branch, Chennai-9 (Account No.11720 10000 00070, IFSC Code: IOBA0001172), within a period of two weeks without prejudice to his rights and contentions before the trial Court;

¶26

iv)the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness.

¶27

v)the petitioner shall not abscond during trial.

¶28

vi)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].

¶29

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

¶30

2/3

¶31

CRL OP(MD). No.8548 of 2021

¶32

vii)If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

¶33

sd/30/06/2021 / TRUE COPY / / /2021 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶34

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.

¶35

¶36

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MELUR. 2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI DISTRICT. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MELUR POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT. 4 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, MADURAI. 5 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶37

COPY TO:

¶38

THE OFFICER INCHARGE, GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, CHIEF MINISTER PUBLIC RELIEF FUND IN IOB, SECRETARIAT BRANCH, CHENNAI-9.

¶39

msa JM/VR/SAR II/30.06.2021/3P/7C

¶40

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

¶41

3/3

Sukumar v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukumar 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

M.Divya, Vs S.Karthick

Veeralakshmi Vs Jeyachandran

S.Xavier Amalanathan Vs R.Anitha Santhanamary

M.Kanagalakshmi, Vs K.Balakumar@Saravanan

V.Mythili Vs a.Ramasubramanian

Manikandan Vs The Inspector of Police