Dismissed

M. Pandithurai v. a.K.Saravanan

Madras HC11 Dec 2023CRL OP/12886/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Madras dismissed a Criminal Original Petition seeking cancellation of an anticipatory bail order granted to six accused persons. The court held that the trial court must decide the case based on admissible evidence and not be influenced by passing remarks in the bail order regarding settlement.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition was dismissed and the anticipatory bail order to the respondents was confirmed.

M. Pandithurai Vs a.K.Saravanan — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.12886 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 11.12.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.12886 of 2023

M.Pandithurai

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.A.K.Saravanan

2.Kalpana

¶12

3.Murugan Soundarajan

¶13

4.Sundaramoorthi

¶14

5.Ravindranath

¶15

6.Kittusamy

¶16

7.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Coimbatore City. ... Respondents

¶17

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C., prayed to cancel the anticipatory bail order granted to the respondents 1-6 / Accused No.1-6 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in Crl.M.P.No.1744 of 2023 dated 28.04.2023.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr. Thanga Vadhana Balakrishnan

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/6

¶20

1/6

¶21

Crl.O.P.No.12886 of 2023

¶22

For R1, R2, R4 to R6 : Mr. V. Jeyachandran For R3 : Mr. P. Kannan Kumar For R7 : Mr. R. Vinothraja, Govt. Advocate (Criminal Side)

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This petition has been filed seeking cancellation of anticipatory

¶25

bail granted to the 1^st to 6^th respondents / 1^st to 6^th accused in Crl.M.P.Nos.1744 of 2023 and 2458 of 2023 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, by an order dated 28.04.2023.

¶26

2.The defacto complainant has filed the present petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner herein pointed out the further order passed in Crl.M.P.No.2754 of 2023 by the learned Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, sitting during the vacation, in an order dated 26.05.2023 in an application filed seeking to relax the condition which had been imposed while granting anticipatory bail, and the statement made by the Public Prosecutor that the accused had not signed as per the condition and that they are not co-

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6

¶28

Crl.O.P.No.12886 of 2023

¶29

operating with the Investigating Agency. A written reply had also been filed that the accused was not co-operating with the Investigating Agency. However, that is an issue, which can be taken up only by the Investigating Agency, if the accused prevents the free flow of investigation.

¶30

3.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), however, stated that investigation has been completed and final report had also been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate – VII, Coimbatore, who had taken cognizance of the same as C.C.No.1584 of 2023.

¶31

4.Therefore, all these issues pale into insignificance and it is for

¶32

the prosecution to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt and in that direction, it is also the onus of the defacto complainant to tender proper admissible evidence during the course of trial.

¶33

5.The learned counsel then pointed out the order granting anticipatory bail, wherein, in paragraph No.9, it had been observed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, that the dispute between the parties can be resolved only by way of filing suit for rendition of

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6

¶35

Crl.O.P.No.12886 of 2023

¶36

accounts of the firm before the appropriate Court.

¶37

6.Let me clarify, that is only a passing remark made by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, and the learned Trial Judge / Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Coimbatore, may follow the principles as laid down in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, that the Court should examine whether the facts had been proved, disproved or not proved, on the basis of the materials available before the Court and not on any other aspects. Materials available before the Court should be admissible, and both oral and documentary evidence. The opinion given while granting anticipatory bail, should not influence the mind of the learned Judicial Magistrate VII, Coimbatore. To that extent, clarification is issued. Let the parties go before the Trial Court and contest the case. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

¶38

11.12.2023

¶39

smv

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/6

¶41

4/6

¶42

Crl.O.P.No.12886 of 2023

¶43

¶44

1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.

¶45

2.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Coimbatore City.

¶46

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/6

¶48

Crl.O.P.No.12886 of 2023

¶49

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

¶50

smv

¶51

Crl.O.P.No.12886 of 2023

¶52

11.12.2023

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/6

M. Pandithurai v. a.K.Saravanan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Pandithurai v. a.K.Saravanan

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

R.Sokkanathan Vs The District Collector

G. Arunpandian Vs the State Rep by

Rajesh Rathore Vs the State by

D.Seenivasan Vs the Inspector of Police

Sudhakar Vs State Rep by

Sakthivel Vs the State Rep.by