Partly allowed

Jegathambal v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC9 Jul 2021CRL OP(MD)/8778/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) granted anticipatory bail to 9 petitioners, excluding 3 who had prior criminal records. The court noted the dispute involved property damage without injury and held custodial interrogation unnecessary for the remaining accused.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to petitioners 1, 2, and 5-10 on conditions including reporting to police daily, execution of bond with sureties, and non-tampering with evidence. Petition dismissed as far a

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

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.8778 of 2021

¶2

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

¶3

Date : 09/07/2021

¶4

PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

¶5

CRL OP(MD). No.8778 of 2021

¶6

Jegathambal

¶7

Kajenthiri @ Kajenthira Rani

¶8

Dinesh @ Dinesh Kumar

¶9

Karthick

¶10

Nagarajan

¶11

Vasuki

¶12

Ajith Kumar

¶13

L.Anguselvam 9. Shanmugavalli 10. Kannaki 11. Ajith ... Petitioners/Accused No.2 to 10, 12 and 15 Vs

¶14

The State rep.by, The Inspector of Police, Nainarkovil Police Station, Ramanathapuram District Crime No. 159/2021. ... Respondent/Complainant

¶15

Alagu ... Petitioner/Intervener in Crl.MP(MD)No.4717/2021 in Crl.OP(MD)No.8778/2021

¶16

For Petitioners: Mr.R.Anand, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam, Additional Public Prosecutor For Intervener : Mr.M.S.Jeyakarthik, Advocate.

¶17

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

¶18

PRAYER :-

¶19

For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. 159 of 2021 on the file of the respondent Police.

¶20

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶21

The petitioners apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 147, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

1/4

¶23

CRL OP(MD). No.8778 of 2021

¶24

148, 294(b), 435, 436, 506(ii) and 120B of I.P.C. r/w. Sections 3 and 4 of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, in Crime No.159 of 2021, seek anticipatory bail.

¶25

2.The case of the prosecution is that there is a previous enmity between the family of the defacto complainant and the family of Samudurai. There is a case registered in connection with previous issue. On 16.06.2021 at about 09.30 pm., when the defacto complainant and his daughter namely., Karthika were standing infront of their house, Sathiya, Samidurai, Jegathammbal, Kajenthiri, Dinesh, Karthick, Vasuki, Ajithkumar, Anguselvam, Shanmugavalli, Prakash, Kannaki, Jivitham, Puvin and some others had formed unlawful assembly and came towards them with knife, woodenlog, Aruval and stick. Fearing that something is going to happen, the defacto complainant and his daughter went into the house and locked them in a room. Sathiya and other scolded them in filthy language and they trespassed into the house and attacked the things in the house. They made criminal intimidation to them. They also attacked the house of Jeeva, Sathiyai, Sumathi and Muniyasamy. They also fired the Tractor of Raja and the Scooty, Tractor and Cycle of Muthuramalingam and they burned 20 bags of cotton. Hence, the present complaint.

¶26

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. The damage alleged to have caused in this case is not really true. The defacto complainant and their party have themselves created the evidence to show that the vehicles had been burnt and houses had been damaged. Therefore, he seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶27

4.The learned counsel for the intervener objected this petition mainly on the ground that the properties worth about several lakhs had been damaged.

¶28

5.The learned Additional Government Pleader opposed this petition on the ground that investigation is not completed. He further submitted that the petitioners 3, 4 and 11 are having previous case. They are as follows:-

¶29

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

¶30

2/4

¶31

CRL OP(MD). No.8778 of 2021

¶32

Dinesh @ Dinesh 1.Nainarkovil Police Station in Crime No.390 Kumar of 2020 under Section 379 r/w. Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act. 2.Nainarkovil Police Station in Crime No.98 of 2014 under Sections 294(b), 323 r/w. Section 3(1)(i) of SC/ST Act. 3.Nainarkovil Police Station in Crime No.48 of 2013 under Section 160 of I.P.C. Karthick Nainarkovil Police Station in Crime No.29 of 2016 under Section 4(1)(a) of TNP Act. Ajith 1.Nainarkovil Police Station in Crime No.8 of 2018 under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. 2.Nainarkovil Police Station in Crime No.255 of 2017 under Sections 143 and 188 of I.P.C. 3.Nainarkovil Police Station in Crime No.253 of 2017 under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 307 and 506(ii) of I.P.C.

¶33

6.Since the petitioners 3, 4 and 11 are having previous case, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as far as the petitioners 3, 4 and 11 are concerned.

¶34

7.The allegations made against the petitioners 1, 2 and 5 to 10 in connection with the case shows that there is a prevailing dispute in connection with election between these two groups and as a result both the parties attacked each other and damaged properties worth about several lakhs. No one is injured in this case. The issue is with regard to the nature and extent of damage. This is to be proved through evidence during trial. As of now, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners 1, 2 and 5 to 10 is not necessary. Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners 1, 2 and 5 to 10.

¶35

8.Accordingly, the petitioners 1, 2 and 5 to 10 are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi, on condition that the petitioners 1, 2 and 5 to 10 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 the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

¶36

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

¶37

3/4

¶38

CRL OP(MD). No.8778 of 2021

¶39

[a] the petitioners 1, 2 and 5 to 10 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;

¶40

[b] the petitioners 1, 2 and 5 to 10 shall report before the respondent police, daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;

¶41

[c] the petitioners 1, 2 and 5 to 10 shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

¶42

[d] the petitioners 1, 2 and 5 to 10 shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

¶43

[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners 1, 2 and 5 to 10 in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 1, 2 and 5 to 10 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

¶44

Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];

¶45

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

¶46

sd/09/07/2021 / TRUE COPY / / /2021 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶47

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.

¶48

¶49

1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PARAMAKUDI, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶50

2.DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶51

3.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NAINARKOVIL POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶52

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

¶53

ORDER IN

¶54

CRL OP(MD) No.8778 of 2021 Date :09/07/2021

¶55

IAS (3/3) PK/MNR/SAR-/14.07.2021 : 4P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶56

4/4

Jegathambal v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jegathambal 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

Sundaram @ Sundaram Chettiar Vs The Inspector of Police

Jeyakumar Vs The Inspector of Police

Vijayakumar Vs The Inspector of Police

Rajkumar Vs The Inspector of Police

A.Raja Vs The Inspector of Police

Prakash Vs The Inspector of Police