Allowed

Murugan v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC6 Mar 2024CRL OP(MD)/3603/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This anticipatory bail petition was allowed for the petitioners in a criminal case involving agricultural dispute. The court granted bail subject to reporting conditions and surrender within 15 days, noting the injured parties were discharged.

What did the court decide?

Inclined to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioners released on bail with bond of Rs.10,000 each and two sureties, subject to specific reporting and surrender conditions.

Murugan Vs The Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

CRL OP(MD) No.3603 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Wednesday, the Sixth day of March Two Thousand and Twenty Four PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRL OP(MD) No.3603 of 2024

¶5

1 MURUGAN 2 PANCHAVARNAM ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 & 2

¶6

¶7

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PALAIYANUR POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT. CRIME NO. (*)15 OF 2024 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶8

For Petitioners : M/S.A.BALAJI, Advocate

¶9

For Respondent : MR.S.MANIKANDAN, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶10

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL UNDER SEC 438 OF CR.P.C.

¶11

PRAYER : FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CRIME NO.(*)15 OF 2024 ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT POLICE.

¶12

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶13

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the alleged offence under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) IPC r/w. Section 4 of

¶14

TNPHW Act, in Crime No.(*)15 of 2024, seek anticipatory bail.

¶15

2.The case of the prosecution is that due to agricultural dispute between the

¶16

petitioners and the defacto complainant, the petitioners attacked the defacto

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis complainant and his wife with hands and threatened them with dire consequences

¶18

1/5

¶19

CRL OP(MD) No.3603 of 2024

¶20

and also scolded them using filthy language. Hence, the complaint.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution aend they have been falsely implicated in this case. Further, it is a case and counter case and the injured are discharged from the hospital. So, he prays for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶22

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that it is the case and counter case and the injured are discharged from the hospital. Hence, he has no objection to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶23

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that it is the case and counter case and the injured are discharged from the hospital, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶24

6.Accordingly, the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail and they are is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirupuvanam, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each, with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police

¶25

officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

2/5

¶27

CRL OP(MD) No.3603 of 2024

¶28

and on further condition that:

¶29

(a)if the petitioners failed to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within a

¶30

period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;

¶31

(b)the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the

¶32

surety bond and the Court concerned may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

¶33

(c)the petitioner No.1 shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, he shall report before the respondent Police as and when required and the petitioner No.2 shall report before the respondent Police as and when required for interrogation;

¶34

(d)the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

¶35

(e)the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

¶36

(f)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]; and;

¶37

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

¶38

3/5

¶39

CRL OP(MD) No.3603 of 2024

¶40

(g)if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under

Section 229-A IPC.

sd/-

06/03/2024

(*)Amended as per Order of this Court dated 10/04/2024 in Crl.MP(MD)No.4241/2024 in Crl.OP (MD)No.3603/2024 by BPJ.

¶45

/ TRUE COPY /

¶46

/04/2024

¶47

Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶48

¶49

TO BE SUBSTITUTED WITH THE ORDER DT.06/03/2024 IS ALREADY DESPATCHED

¶50

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUPUVANAM.

¶51

2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT.

¶52

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALAIYANUR POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT.

¶53

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

¶54

+1 CC to M/s.A.BALAJI, Advocate ( SR-4430[I] dated 15/04/2024 )

¶55

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

¶56

4/5

¶57

CRL OP(MD) No.3603 of 2024

¶58

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.3603 of 2024 Date :06/03/2024

¶59

RS/GS/SAR-(13.03.2024) 5P 6C JBR SA/GS/SAR. /18.04.2024/5P 6C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023

¶60

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

¶61

5/5

Murugan v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murugan 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

Thangaraj Vs .The Joint Commissioner

V.Thajudeen Vs The Commissioner

Abubacker Siddiq Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Customs

M/s.Sutharson Hotel Vs The Deputy Commissioner (St)

Sundaraj Naidu.R Vs The Commissioner

Maheswari Vs the State of Tamilnadu