Allowed

Vinothini v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC22 Feb 2023CRL OP/2802/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Madras, while observing that the petitioner stabbed the deceased to death after a quarrel, granted bail to the petitioner who had been in custody for over 41 days, subject to strict conditions including reporting every Saturday and ensuring one surety is a blood relative.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be released on bail by executing separate bonds with sureties, including a blood surety, recording thumb impressions, and complying with reporting and non-tampering conditions.

Vinothini Vs the Inspector of Police — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.2802 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.2802 of 2023

¶7

Vinothini, W/o.late Velmurugan

¶8

.. Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

State represented by The Inspector of Police, R-5 Virugambakkam Police Station, Chennai-03. (Crime No.20 of 2023) .. Respondent

¶11

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.20 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police.

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

1/7

¶15

Crl.O.P.No.2802 of 2023

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 11.01.2023 for the alleged offence under Sections 302 and 201 of I.P.C. in Crime No.20 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶18

The case of prosecution is that the petitioner is wife of defacto complainant's brother viz., Velmurugan and on 09.01.2023 around 09.30 p.m., in an inebriated state, he quarreled with the petitioner, thereby she stabbed deceased on his stomach, resulting in which, he sustained serious injuries and died. Hence, the complaint was registered against the petitioner.

¶19

The learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that she

¶20

is working as a cook in a residence and on the date of occurrence, she was informed that her husband was found fallen in an unconscious state near Dasarathapuram wine shop, and she informed to his brother, thereby he went there and dropped him at petitioner's residence. He would submit that though they have been married 13 years back,

¶21

2/7

¶22

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

¶23

Crl.O.P.No.2802 of 2023

¶24

unfortunately, they have no issues. He would also submit that the respondent police instead of registering the case under Sec.174 of Cr.P.C., they have straight away registered the F.I.R. against her under Sec.302 of I.P.C. without conducting proper investigation. He would further submit that she is no way connected with the offence and she has not committed any of offence as alleged by the respondent police. He would also submit that she has been falsely implicated in this case and she will abide by any condition that may be imposed by this court. He would also submit that the petitioner has been suffering incarceration for more than 41 days from 11.01.2023. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶25

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for respondent would submit that she is the sole accused. He would also submit that on the date of occurrence, in a drunken mood, deceased made a quarrel with her, in which, she stabbed him on his stomach, due to which, he succumbed to injuries. He would submit that if she is released on bail, she would hamper the investigation and tamper the witnesses and the investigation is almost completed. However, he would vehemently

¶26

3/7

¶27

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

¶28

Crl.O.P.No.2802 of 2023

¶29

opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶30

Considering the facts and circumstances and also the fact

¶31

that on the date of alleged occurrence, when the deceased, in an inebriated state had a quarrel with her, in which, she stabbed him on his stomach, due to which, he succumbed to injuries, thereby the said occurrence was happened and she was married 13 years back, however, there is no issues for them and the fact that she is working as a cook in a residence and the investigation is almost completed, and on considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶32

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail

¶33

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 XXIII

¶34

Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, and on further conditions that::

¶35

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

¶36

Crl.O.P.No.2802 of 2023

¶37

(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;

¶38

(b) the petitioner shall report before the respondent police on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m. for the period of eight weeks.

¶39

¶40

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

¶41

(e) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the 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;

¶42

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

¶43

22.02.2023

¶44

5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

Crl.O.P.No.2802 of 2023

¶46

rpp

¶47

¶48

The XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

¶49

Inspector of Police, R-5 Virugambakkam Police Station, Chennai.

¶50

The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal,

¶51

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

¶52

6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶53

Crl.O.P.No.2802 of 2023

¶54

T.V. THAMILSELVI, J.

¶55

rpp

¶56

Crl.O.P.No. 2802 of 2023

¶57

22.02.2023

¶58

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

Vinothini v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinothini v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Duraisamy Vs Inspector of Police

Ponnuvel @ Gopal Vs the State Rep by Its

M.Azhar @ Imamoli Vs the State Rep.by

N.Arul Kumar Vs State Rep by

E.Vasantha Kumar Vs the State Rep by Its

John Melkiyur Vs the Inspector of Police