Partly allowed

John Melkiyur v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC22 Feb 2023CRL OP/2529/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail petition was filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. against grave criminal offences under the IPC. While bail was dismissed for the first petitioner due to Goondas Act detention, it was granted to the second petitioner with monetary and surety conditions as the investigation neared completion and the victim was discharged.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to the second petitioner subject to a deposit of Rs. 10,000, execution of bond with sureties including a blood relative, and mandatory reporting every Tuesday and Sunday. Bail dismissed f

John Melkiyur Vs the Inspector of Police — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.2529 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 22.02.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.2529 of 2023

¶7

John Melqure, S/o. Samuvel

¶8

Raymad @ Anthony Raymand, S/o. Anthoniraj

¶9

.. Petitioners

¶10

Vs.

¶11

State represented by The Inspector of Police, Elavarasoorkottai Police Station, Villupuram. (Crime No.313 of 2022) .. Respondent

¶12

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 439

¶13

of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime No.313 of

¶14

2022 on the file of respondent police.

¶15

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Prakash

¶16

For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶17

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

¶18

1/7

¶19

Crl.O.P.No.2529 of 2023

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 08.01.2023 for the alleged offence under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, 324 and 307 of I.P.C. in Crime No.313 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.

¶22

The case of the prosecution is that due to a money dispute, there was a wordy quarrel between petitioners along with other accused and the defacto complainant, thereby, on the date of occurrence, they intercepted him and attacked him with stone and wooden stick, in which, the defacto complainant sustained injuries and he was admitted in hospital for treatment. Hence, the complaint.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

¶24

petitioners and defacto complainant are friends. As there was a previous enmity between A1 and the defacto complainant, frequently they used to fight with each other in view of demanding money. Whenever the dispute arose, the petitioners said to have supported A1 and they would compromise each other. However, on the date of occurrence, they have 2/7

¶25

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

¶26

Crl.O.P.No.2529 of 2023

¶27

not attempted to cause any injury to him. He would submit that they have not at all committed any offence as alleged by the respondent police and they are no way connected with the offence. He would submit that they have been falsely implicated in this case for statistical purpose. He would further submit that the investigation is almost completed and that the petitioners have been suffering incarceration for more than 44 days from 08.01.2023. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioners.

¶28

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for respondent would submit that as against 1^st petitioner, he was detained under Goondas Act. Totally, there are 7 accused involved in this case and the petitioners are arrayed as A3 and A5. He would submit that there are 6 previous cases pending as against 2^nd petitioner. He would submit that on the date of occurrence, due to money dispute, there was a wordy quarrel between petitioners and the defacto complainant, thereby they attacked him with stone and wooden stick, in which, he sustained grievous injuries and he was admitted in hospital and subsequently, he was discharged from the hospital. He would also submit that if they are released on bail, they will tamper the witnesses and hamper the 3/7

¶29

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

¶30

Crl.O.P.No.2529 of 2023

¶31

investigation and now injured discharged from the hospital. Hence, he

¶32

vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioners.

¶33

So far as 1^st petitioner is concerned, as he was detained under Act 14 of 1982, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as against the

¶34

1^st petitioner.

¶35

Considering the above facts and circumstances and also the fact that the investigation is almost completed, and the fact that the injured discharged from the hospital and on considering the period of incarceration undergone by the 2^nd petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the 2^nd petitioner with certain conditions.

¶36

Accordingly, the 2^nd petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) in Crime No.313 of 2022 before the concerned Magistrate from the date on which this order is made ready and the victim is permitted to withdraw the said amount on production of proper identification and acknowledgement and on

¶37

4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

Crl.O.P.No.2529 of 2023

¶39

such deposit, the 2^nd petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on executing separate bonds for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each, in which one surety must be a blood surety, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ulundurpet, and on further conditions that::

¶40

(a) 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;

¶41

(b) the 2^nd petitioner shall appear before the respondent police on every Tuesday and Sunday at 10.30 a.m. for the period of eight weeks.

¶42

¶43

(d) the 2^nd petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

¶44

(e) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take

¶45

5/7

¶46

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

¶47

Crl.O.P.No.2529 of 2023

¶48

appropriate action against the 2^nd petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the 2^nd petitioner 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 Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560]; and;

¶49

(f) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

22.02.2023

rpp