Allowed

S.Rajagopal v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC6 Jul 2021CRL OP(MD)/8762/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to the petitioner, an accused person in judicial custody, in a case involving enmity, assault with a weapon, and an attempt on life. The court noted no injuries to the complainant and ordered release on a bond with sureties and daily reporting conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered released on bail by executing a bond for Rs.10,000 with two sureties, conditional upon daily police reporting and non-attraction.

S.Rajagopal Vs The Inspector of Police — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.8762 of 2021

¶2

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

¶3

Date : 06/07/2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

¶6

CRL OP(MD). No.8762 of 2021

¶7

S.Rajagopal ... Petitioner/Accused No.10

¶8

¶9

State rep.by, The Inspector of Police, Thalamuthu Nagar Police Station, Tuticorin District.

¶10

Crime No. 200/2021. ... Respondent/Complainant

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.KA.Raamakrishnan,

¶12

Advocate.

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶14

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

¶15

PRAYER :-

¶16

For Bail in Crime No. 200 of 2021 on the file of the respondent Police.

¶17

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶18

The petitioner/A10, who was arrested on 18.06.2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 147,148,341,294(b),307,120(b), 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.200 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶19

The case of the prosecution is that there was previous enmity between the defacto complainant and advocate S.Jothiraja. On 18.06.2021 at about 5.30 pm., the defacto complainant closed his tea shop and came towards his house. When he was about to enter his house four persons came in two, two wheelers waylaid him and one person with aruval tried to attack him, the defacto complainant evaded the attack. Then his brothers Karuppasamy and Ponselvan came there. At that time, one scorpio car came there. Sathish and Armstrong got down from the car and shouted to Ajith and Alex to run from there if they are not able to kill Ravi. At the same time another Bolero car came there and in that car advocate Jothiraja and Rasukutty came there and cautioned Mathan and Serin to

¶20

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

¶21

1/3

¶22

CRL OP(MD). No.8762 of 2021

¶23

escape from there. Therefore all the four persons namely Ajith, Alex, Mathan, Serin escaped from there using two two wheelers bearing Reg. Nos. TN 69 AA2766 and TN92 A1449, therefore the case came to be registered.

¶24

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the petitioner is in judicial custody from 18.06.2021, hence he seeks bail.

¶25

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent opposed the bail petition on the ground that the investigation is not yet completed.

¶26

A reading of the First Information Report shows that there is no injuries caused to the defacto complainant. It seems to be an attempt on his life and it has to be proved in the Court during trial

¶27

6.Taking note of the fact and circumstances of the case and also the fact that there is no injuries caused to the defacto complainant and the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody from 18.06.2021, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner

¶28

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 No.II, Tuticorin and on further condition that:

¶29

[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.

¶30

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 am., until further orders.

¶31

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

¶32

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

¶33

[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].

¶34

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

¶35

2/3

¶36

CRL OP(MD). No.8762 of 2021

¶37

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

¶38

sd/-

¶39

06/07/2021 / TRUE COPY /

¶40

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

¶41

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. TO

¶42

1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II, TUTICORIN.

¶43

2.DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TUTICORIN DISTRICT

¶44

3.THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, PALAYAMKOTTAI.

¶45

4.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THALAMUTHU NAGAR POLICE STATION, TUTICORIN DISTRICT

¶46

5.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.8762 of 2021 Date :06/07/2021 AAV PK/JC/SAR-IV/06.07.2021 : 3P/6C

¶47

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

¶48

3/3

S.Rajagopal v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Rajagopal 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

Santhanam Vs The Inspector of Police

K.Raju Vs The Inspector of Police

Kannan Vs The Inspector of Police

Jayamani Vs The Inspector of Police

Chandrakumar Durai Vs The Inspector of Police

I.Amstrong Vs The Inspector of Police