Allowed

Krishnaveni v. Assistant Commissioner of Police

Madras HC4 Apr 2022CRL MP/3020/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants bail and suspends sentence for two accused parents pending disposal of their criminal appeal. The High Court observed that the appeal requires detailed appraisal and the petitioners have been in incarceration since conviction, entitling them to bail under Section 389 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of imprisonment is suspended and bail is granted on execution of a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two sureties, conditional on monthly appearance before the trial court.

Krishnaveni Vs Assistant Commissioner of Police — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 04.04.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN

¶7

Crl.M.P.No.3020 of 2022

¶8

in Crl.A.No.240 of 2022

¶9

1.Krishnaveni

¶10

2.Ganapathy ..Petitioners/Accused 4 & 5

¶11

Vs.

¶12

State represented by The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Law & Order (South), Coimbatore City.

¶13

(Crime No.576/2016 Podhanur P.S.)

¶14

..Respondent/Complainant

¶15

Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C., to suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioners by judgment and order dated 04.05.2021 passed in S.C.No.190 of 2017 on the file of the Sessions Court, Magalir Neethimandram, (Mahila Court), Coimbatore and to enlarge the petitioners on bail pending disposal of the appeal.

¶16

For Petitioners : Mr.Ganesha Moorthy B. For Respondent : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R

¶17

(Made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.)

¶18

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed seeking to suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioners by judgment and order dated 04.05.2021 passed in S.C.No.190 of 2017 on the file of the Sessions Court, Magalir Neethimandram, (Mahila Court), Coimbatore and to enlarge the petitioners on bail pending disposal of the appeal.

¶19

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

¶20

The petitioners (AA 4 and 5) faced a prosecution along with three others viz., Santhakumar (A1), Saradha (A2) and Sureshkumar (A3) in S.C.No.190 of 2017 before the Sessions Court, Magalir Neethimandram, (Mahila Court), Coimbatore, in which, they were convicted and sentenced as follows on 04.05.2021:

¶21

Accused	Provision under which convicted	Sen	tence
		Two year	s r	igorous
	Section 498-A IPC, each	imprisonment Rs.500/-, in undergo three imprisonment,	and fi defaul months each.	ne of t to simple
Krishnaveni (A4) and Ganapathy (A5)	Section 304-B IPC, each	Seven yea imprisonment Rs.500/-, in undergo one imprisonment, Six month	rs r and fi defaul year each. s r	igorous ne of t to simple igorous
	Section 4 of the	imprisonment	and fi	ne of
	Dowry Prohibition	Rs.500/-, in	defaul	t to
	Act, 1961, each	undergo one imprisonment,	month each.	simple

¶22

The aforesaid sentenced were ordered to run concurrently.

¶23

Challenging the above conviction and sentences, the petitioners (AA 4 and 5) have filed Crl.A.No.240 of 2022 along with the instant miscellaneous petition seeking suspension of sentence and bail.

¶24

Heard Mr.Ganesha Moorthy B., learned counsel for the petitioners (AA 4 and 5) and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State.

¶25

It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioners (AA 4 and 5) are the parents of Santhakumar (A1) and parents-in-law of the deceased Girija; the petitioners (AA 4 and 5) allegedly demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- and five sovereigns of gold during marriage, apart from which, there is no other allegation with regard to physical assault of Girija by the petitioner (AA 4 and 5).

¶26

The petitioners (AA 4 and 5) have raised substantial grounds in the appeal, which require detailed appraisal. Moreover, the petitioners (AA 4 and 5) have been in incarceration since 04.05.2021. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the petitioners (AA 4 and 5) are entitled to the relief of suspension of sentence and bail.

¶27

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

¶28

Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed and the sentence of imprisonment is suspended and bail is granted to the petitioners (AA 4 and 5) on the following conditions:

¶29

(i) The petitioners (AA 4 and 5) shall be released on bail on they executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/-, with two sureties, of whom, one should be a blood relative, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Sessions Court, Magalir Neethimandram, (Mahila Court), Coimbatore;

¶30

(ii) The sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the trial Court may obtain a copy of their mobile number, Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity; and

¶31

(iii) The petitioners (AA 4 and 5) shall appear before the trial Court on the first working day of every month at 10.30 a.m. until the disposal of the appeal and if they are not able to appear before the trial Court on any day, they shall make arrangements to file an application under Section 317 Cr.P.C. and shall appear before the trial Court on any other day in lieu of the date of their absence, as directed by the trial Court.

¶32

-sd/-

¶33

04/04/2022 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned

¶34

TRUE COPY

¶35

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104. TO

¶36

1 THE SESSIONS JUDGE, MAGALIR NEETHIMANDRAM, (MAHILA COURT), COIMBATORE.

¶37

2 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, COIMBATORE.

¶38

3 THE SUPERINTENDENT, SPECIAL PRISON FOR WOMEN, COIMBATORE

¶39

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

¶40

4 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, LAW AND ORDER (SOUTH), COIMBATORE CITY.

¶41

5 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶42

+1 C.C. to M/S. GANESHA MOORTHY B. Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO. 5060

¶43

Order

¶44

in CRL MP.3020/2022 in

¶45

Crl.A.No.240 of 2022

¶46

Date :04/04/2022

¶47

From 7.2.2001 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the BAIL/Anti.BAIL Orders in this format

¶48

RW 05/04/2022

¶49

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

Krishnaveni v. Assistant Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnaveni v. Assistant Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

High Court Vs S.Subramanian(party-in-person)

S.Kalaivani Vs The state Rep by its

Rajendran Vs the Superintendent of Police

K.G.Ramesh@Murali, M/A.48 Vs the Assistant Director

T.D.Sonia Vs the Deputy Director

Danavel Vs the Superintendent of Police