Allowed

Mohan v. the State Rep.by Its

Madras HC7 Feb 2024CRL OP/2112/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court granted bail to petitioners accused of murder in Crime No. 413 of 2023, noting they were inpatients with no direct overt acts alleged against them and that the investigation had proceeded substantially since their previous bail was denied.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail upon executing bonds of Rs. 10,000 each with two sureties, subject to daily reporting to police and non-interference with investigation.

Mohan Vs the State Rep.by Its — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.2112 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 07.02.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

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

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.2112 of 2024

¶7

1.Mohan 2.Gurumoorthi 3.Iyyanar

¶8

2.Gurumoorthi

¶9

...Petitioners/Accused 3-5

¶10

Vs.

¶11

State represented by The Inspector of Police, Magudamchavadi Police Station, Salem District.

¶12

(Crime No.413 of 2023)

¶13

...Respondent

¶14

PRAYER:

¶15

Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail concerned in Crime No.413 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police on such terms and conditions.

¶16

For Petitioners : Mr.AM.Esakkiappan For Respondent : Mr.L.Baskaran Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶17

1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

Crl.O.P.No.2112 of 2024

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioners/A3 to A5 in Crime No.413 of 2023, originally

¶21

registered by the respondent police for the offence under Section 174 of Cr.P.C., and later altered to Section 304(2) of IPC and subsequently again altered to Sections 147, 148 and 302 of IPC, seek bail. The petitioners had been remanded to custody on 02.12.2023.

¶22

2.It is the case of the prosecution that the mother of the deceased had given a complaint that the deceased was an alcoholic and had been admitted to a home for de-addiction purposes. The 1^st and 2^nd accused were running the home.

¶23

3.It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that these petitioners/A3 to A5 were inpatients and that there is no direct overt act as against them. It is stated that A1 and A2 alone had tied the hands and legs of the deceased and also put a cloth in his mouth probably to give effective treatment or whatever purpose but there are injuries in the body of the deceased. The Post Mortem report says that quite apart from the

¶24

2/5

¶25

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

¶26

Crl.O.P.No.2112 of 2024

¶27

injuries in the other regions of the body of the deceased there was also a contusion injury in the abdomen region.

¶28

5.The earlier application seeking bail had been dismissed by this Court on 11.01.2024 in Crl.O.P.No.533 of 2024. The change in circumstance is that investigation has proceeded to a substantial extent.

¶29

6.It is also informed that these petitioners also come there for getting treatment and incidentally are also used or rather exploited by A1 and A2 at that time when another patient comes to assist in giving treatment by A1 and A2 called “treatment”.

¶30

7.Taking into consideration the period of incarceration and all

¶31

other factors, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioners subject to the following conditions:

¶32

8.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on

¶33

condition to execute separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/ - (Rupees Ten

¶34

3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

Crl.O.P.No.2112 of 2024

¶36

Thousand only) each with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate II, Sangagiri, and on further conditions that: -

¶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 petitioners shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.

¶39

[c] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

¶40

[d] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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].

¶42

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered

¶43

under Section 229A IPC.

ata

07.02.2024

4/5

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

¶48

Crl.O.P.No.2112 of 2024

¶49

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN. J. ata

¶50

¶51

The Judicial Magistrate II, Sangagiri.

¶52

The Central Prison, Salem.

¶53

3.The Inspector of Police, Magudamchavadi Police Station, Salem District.

¶54

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶55

Crl.O.P.No.2112 of 2024

¶56

07.02.2024

¶57

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

Mohan v. the State Rep.by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan v. the State Rep.by Its

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

Mani Rathnam Vs Inspector of Police

Badrajalam @ Batrasalam Vs State Rep by

Manikandan Vs the State Represented by

Sivamohan Vs the Inspector of Police

Dhinakaran Vs Inspector of Police

Sanjai Kumar Brahma Vs the State Rep.by