Allowed

Saravanan @ Gundu Saravanan v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC6 Jun 2023CRL OP(MD)/9414/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court granted bail to an accused arrested for kidnapping and extortion, considering his period of incarceration and the disputed business relationship with the victim, subject to conditions including daily police reporting.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with Rs.10,000 bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of reporting, abstaining from offences, and not tampering with evidence or witnesses.

Saravanan @ Gundu Saravanan Vs The Inspector of Police — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.9414 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶4

Date : 06/06/2023

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶7

CRL OP(MD). No.9414 of 2023

¶8

Saravanan @ Gundu Saravanan ... Petitioner/Accused No.1

¶9

¶10

State Rep.by The Inspector of Police, E-5, Mattuthavani Police Station, Mattuthavani, Madurai City, Madurai District. Crime No.165 of 2023.

¶11

Crime No.165 of 2023. ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.B.Aravinthan, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶12

PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C.

¶13

PRAYER :-

¶14

For Bail in Cr.No.165 of 2023 on the file of the Respondent Police.

¶15

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶16

The petitioner/A1, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 30.04.2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 364(A), 365, 324 and 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.165 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶17

2.The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant is doing finance business in the Cinema Industry and he is also the District President of Jallikattu Association. A1 is well known to the de-facto complainant through the Jallikattu events. On 26.04.2023, at about 07.30 p.m., the de-facto complainant along with his friend AC Pandi went to the Kingfisher Club in Pandikovil road to buy liquor. When his friend went inside the shop, all the accused said to have kidnapped the de-facto complainant in his own car and demanded a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. The de-facto complainant told his wife to give his gold articles to his friend AC Pandi and A4 got the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis gold jewels about 34 sovereigns from him as ransom. Hence, the case.

¶18

1/3

¶19

CRL OP(MD). No.9414 of 2023

¶20

3.Heard. Perused the materials available on record including the First Information Report.

¶21

4.It is seen that there is a dispute between the petitioner's friend and the victim in rally of business. The petitioner is a bull tamer and also maintaining the bulls. Now the jewels were recovered from the petitioner.

¶22

5.Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

¶23

[a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two blood related sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai, and on further conditions that:

¶24

[b] 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.

¶25

[c] the petitioner shall stay at Authoor and report before the Inspector of Police, Authoor Police Station, Thoothukudi daily at 10.30 A.M. and 05.30 P.M., until further orders.

¶26

[d] the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature.

¶27

[e] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

¶28

[f] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

¶29

[g] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial 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].

¶30

[h] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

sd/-

06/06/2023

/ TRUE COPY /

/06/2023

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶36

SJI

¶37

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

¶38

2/3

¶39

CRL OP(MD). No.9414 of 2023

¶40

¶41

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.VI, MADURAI.

¶42

2 DO-THROUGH : THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI DISTRICT.

¶43

3 THE OFFICER INCHARGE, MELUR SUB JAIL, MADURAI.

¶44

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, E-5, MATTUTHAVANI POLICE STATION, MATTUTHAVANI, MADURAI CITY, MADURAI DISTRICT.

¶45

5 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶46

COPY TO

¶47

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AUTHOOR POLICE STATION, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT.

¶48

+1 CC to M/s.ARAVINTHAN, Advocate ( SR-8112[I] dated 06/06/2023 )

¶49

ORDER

¶50

IN CRL OP(MD) No.9414 of 2023 Date :06/06/2023 RS/VR/SAR-(06.06.2023) 3P 8C

¶51

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

¶52

3/3

Saravanan @ Gundu Saravanan v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saravanan @ Gundu Saravanan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S. Palaniselvi Vs a.R.Vishwanathan

Azhageswaran Vs the Inspector of Police

Chidambaraselvaraj Vs Perumalnadar

Ramachandran Vs The Inspector of Police

S.Manoharan Vs the Inspector of Police

Selvaraj @ Selvan Vs The Inspector of Police