Allowed

Ganesan v. State Rep.by

Madras HC3 Aug 2023CRL MP/1841/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted a bail application seeking suspension of the sentence imposed on petitioners convicted via circumstantial evidence. Finding contradictions in evidence and acknowledging three years of incarceration, the court suspended the sentence and released petitioners on stringent bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Sentence suspended; petitioners released on bail subject to execution of bond, appearance once a week, and other stringent conditions.

Ganesan Vs State Rep.by — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.M.P.No.1841 of 2023 in Crl.A.No.427 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 03.08.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶8

Crl.M.P.No.1841 of 2023 in Crl.A.No.427 of 2020

1.Ganesan 2.Arumugam

.... Petitioners

State, represented by Inspector of Police, Singarapettai Police Station, Krishnagiri District. .... Respondent

¶13

Prayer : Petition under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C., to suspend the sentence imposed in S.C.No.118 of 2014 dated 16.10.2020 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri and enlarge the petitioners on bail pending disposal of this criminal appeal.

¶14

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu For Respondent : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj

¶15

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

1/6

¶18

Crl.M.P.No.1841 of 2023 in Crl.A.No.427 of 2020

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

[Order of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.]

¶21

This petition has been filed to suspend the sentence made in S.C.No.118 of 2014 dated 16.10.2020 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri.

¶22

Heard Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

¶23

This is the case where conviction was earned by these petitioners, who stood as A2 and A4, based on the circumstantial evidences.

¶24

We have gone through certain portion of the evidences and also the Postmortem report and the nature of the charge framed against the accused where we find some contradictions.

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

2/6

¶27

Crl.M.P.No.1841 of 2023 in Crl.A.No.427 of 2020

¶28

This issue can be decided only after full-fledged hearing, which would be made in the final hearing, for which it will take some reasonable time, hence we feel that since the petitioners had been in incarceration for nearly about 3 years after the conviction they earned and as a pre-trial process, for which they had been in jail for three months and more, the substantive sentence imposed against these petitioners can be suspended at present with certain stringent conditions. Accordingly, the sentence imposed against the petitioners made in S.C.No.118 of 2014 dated 16.10.2020 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri is hereby suspended and they are released on bail subject to the following conditions:

¶29

(i) The petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each,

¶30

with two sureties, of whom, one should be a blood relative, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri;

¶31

(ii) The sureties shall affix their photographs and Left

¶32

Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the trial Court may obtain a copy of their Aadhar Card or Bank Pass Book

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

3/6

¶35

Crl.M.P.No.1841 of 2023 in Crl.A.No.427 of 2020

¶36

and mobile number to ensure their identity;

¶37

(iii) The petitioners shall appear before the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri once in a week i.e. every Monday at 10.00 a.m. or on the first working day of every week, until the disposal of this Criminal 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.

¶38

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶39

Sgl/vji

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

4/6

¶42

Crl.M.P.No.1841 of 2023 in Crl.A.No.427 of 2020

¶43

¶44

1.The Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri.

¶45

2.The Inspector of Police, Singarapettai Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

¶46

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

5/6

¶49

Crl.M.P.No.1841 of 2023 in Crl.A.No.427 of 2020

¶50

R.SURESH KUMAR, J. And K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

¶51

Sgl/vji

¶52

Crl.M.P.No.1841 of 2023 in Crl.A.No.427 of 2020

¶53

03.08.2023

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶55

6/6

Ganesan v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Siddarthan Vs the Chief Secretary to Govt

The Government of Tamilnadu Vs a.Lokose

The Government of Tamil Nadu Vs a.Annamalai

Nagachandra Vathana Vs Commissioner of Police

S.Sivan Vs the Regional Accounts Officer(Audit)

R.Thirumaran Vs the District Educational Officer