Allowed

Pandiyaraj v. State Rep by

Madras HC18 Feb 2022CRL A/143/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal and granted bail to the appellant accused of offences under IPC and TN Public Property Act in a caste-atrocity case, setting aside the Sessions Judge's rejection order and imposing specific conditions including a monetary bond and residence restrictions.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal allowed; Impugned order dated 02.02.2022 set aside; Bail granted subject to execution of bond, surety conditions, daily reporting, and residency conditions.

Pandiyaraj Vs State Rep by — Caste Atrocities | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 18.02.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

¶5

Crl.A.No.143 of 2022

¶6

Pandiyaraj ...Appellant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Kitchipalayam Police Station, Salem - 636 015. (Crime No.1182 of 2020)

¶9

State, Represented by Deputy Superintendent of police, Kitchipalayam Police Station, Salem - 636 015. ...Respondents/Complainants

¶10

3.Mrs.Jansirani ...Respondent/Defacto Complainant

¶11

Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, praying to set aside the order dated 02-02-2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.480 of 2022 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem and enlarge the Appellant on bail in Crime No.1182 of 2020, on the file of the 1st Respondent police.

¶12

For Appellant : Mr.M.Mohamed Yasin For RR1 & 2 : Mr.L.A.J.Leonard Arul Joseph Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

The appellant herein is arrayed as A21 in Crime No.1182 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police and has been accused of committing an offence along with others under Sections 147, 148, 341, 302 and 427 of IPC r/w Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Public Property(Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act, 1992. He has surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Karur on 23.12.2020 and ever since, he is in judicial custody. The investigation is complete and the final report has been laid and the matter is now pending in Special SC.No.6 of 2021.

¶15

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

¶16

2.The Appellant moved for bail before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem in Crl.M.P.No.480 of 2022. The learned Sessions Judge, Vide his order dated 02.02.2022 has dismissed the petition. Challenging the same, the Appellant is before this Court.

¶17

3.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted the Appellant has been falsely implicated in the case, that he has not even been named in the FIR and that he has already been in judicial custody for more than 400 days.

¶18

4.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) submitted that there has been enmity between two groups and it has resulted in the commission of the offence.

¶19

5.Taking into consideration the duration of incarnation suffered by the appellant and the line of the prosecution case and also the stage of investigation, this Court finds it appropriate to grant bail to the appellant on the following conditions;

¶20

(i) the appellant shall be released on bail on he executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem;

¶21

(ii) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Principal Sessions Judge, Salem, may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

¶22

(iii the appellant shall stay in Nagapattinam and ) report before the Judicial Magistrate - I , Nagapattinam, daily at 10.00 a.m. until further orders;

¶23

(iv) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Sessions Judge is entitled to take appropriate action against the appellant in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the appellant released on bail by the learned Sessions Judge himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560]; and

¶24

(v) if the appellant thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC;

¶25

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

¶26

6.In the result, the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem in Crl.M.P.No.480 of 2022 on 02.02.2022 is set aside and the Criminal Appeal is accordingly allowed.

¶27

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶28

//True Copy//

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

Tsg

¶31

¶32

The Principal Sessions Judge, Salem.

¶33

The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Salem.

¶34

The Inspector of Police, Kitchipalayam Police Station, Salem - 636 015.

¶35

The Deputy Superintendent of police, Kitchipalayam Police Station, Salem - 636 015.

¶36

The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai – 600 104. 6. The Judicial Magistrate, Karur. 7. The Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam. 8. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem. +2cc to Mr.M.Mohamed Yasin, Advocate, SR.No.10867

¶37

Crl.A.No.143 of 2022

¶38

KV(CO) KKV/18/02/2022

¶39

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

Pandiyaraj v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandiyaraj v. State Rep by

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

Jiguna @ Chinnathambi Vs the State Rep by

Maharajan Vs Geetha

Karthikeyan Vs Varatharajan

Brindha Vs K.T.Muthukumar

Ponnazhagu Vs State Rep by

S.Ganesan Vs M.Sathish