George, v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twenty Ninth day of July Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.13680 of 2015 GEORGE ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.1 S.KOILRAJ ...INTERVENER/ DEFACTO COMPLAINANT Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SATHANKULAM POLICE STATION, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT.

(CRIME NO.224 OF 2015) ... RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.V.SASIKUMAR Advocate For Respondent : Mr.K.V.RAJARAJAN, Government Advocate(crl.side) For Intervener : MR.A.R.P.T.KALYANAKUMAR,ADVOCATE PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who is arrayed as A1 in Crime No.224 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police, was surrendered on 17.05.2015 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 342, 302 and 506(ii) of I.P.C., and hence, seeks bail.

2.According to the de-facto complainant, in the church election, the accused supported one Pushba Raj and the deceased supported one Arputha Raj and the candidates supported by the petitioner was defeated and thereafter due to election dispute, on 16.05.2015 while A2 and A3 caught hold of the deceased, A1 stabbed him with knife on his neck and caused his death. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that he has been incarceration for more than 75 days and the co-accused A2 and A3 were already granted bail by this Court.

4.The learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that after the church election and due to the threat of the accused, the defacto complainant's family have shifted to nearest village and only https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

to participate festival in the church, the de-facto complainant party has come to their native place, where the accused have picked up quarrel with the deceased and attacked him with knife. He further submitted that A2 and A3 after releasing from jail are threatening the witness and also interfering with the investigation and if the accused is released on bail, the de-facto complainant's life will be in danger.

5.Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the State.

6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail on the following conditions.

7.Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam and on further condition that the petitioner shall reside at Chennai and report before the Thirumangalam Police Station daily twice ie., at 10.00 a.m., and 05.00 p.m., until further orders. sd/- 29/07/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SATHANKULAM.

2.THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE THOOTHUKUDI.

3.THE ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

4.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SATHANKULAM POLICE STATION, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT. 5.THE SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON, PALAYAMKOTTAI. 6.THE OFFICER INCHARGE, THIRUMANGALAM POLICE STATION,CHENNAI. +1. CC to M/S.A.R.P.T.KALYANAKUMAR, Advocate SR.No.42530 +1cc to Mr.V.Sasi Kumar, Advocate SR No.42381

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.13680 of 2015 Date :29/07/2015 rg.31.07.2015 2p.9c.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/