Suresh v. The Sub Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Thirtieth day of August Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.16053 of 2016 SURESH ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. 1 Vs STATE REP.BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE AMMAYANAICKANUR POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. CR. NO.617/2009 ... RESPONDENT /COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S C.ASAITHAMBI Advocate For Respondent : M/S.P.KANNITHEVAN Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner who is arrayed as accused no.1 was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 22.08.2016 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 363,294(b),506(i) of IPC 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act in Crime No.617 of 2009, on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner took the defacto complainant's son to Uttarpradesh for employment for six months. Subsequently, the son of the defacto complainant did not return. When the defacto complainant enquired with the petitioner, the petitioner abused the defacto complainant in filthy language by using her Caste name and also threatened her with dire consequences. On complaint, a case has been registered for the above said offences.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and due to the previous enmity a false case has been foisted against the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner is working at Uttarpradesh and he has not received any summons from the respondent police or from the Court and due to that fact he did not appear before the trial Court and NBW was issued against the petitioner for his non appearance on 16.02.2014 and thereafter, the petitioner filed Crl.O.P(MD).No.13985 of 2016, before this Court and this Court by order dated 09.08.2016 directed the petitioner to surrender before the concerned Court and that the petitioner has also surrendered before the learned
Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul, in Crl.M.P.No.1872 of 2016 and the same was dismissed on 22.08.2016. He further submitted that the petitioner will appear before the trial court on all future hearing dates and prays for enlarging the petitioner on bail.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the petitioner took the son of the defacto complainant to work in Uttarpradesh and subsequently, the son of the defacto complainant did not return. When the same was questioned by the defacto complainant, the petitioner abused her in filthy language and also by using Caste name and threatened her with dire consequences. Even after receiving summons the petitioner did not appear before the trial Court and therefore, NBW was issued on 16.02.2014 and subsequently, the same was executed after 2 1⁄2 years. He further submitted that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he will abscond and he will not appear before the trial Court and the trial cannot be proceed with and prayed for dismissal of this petition. 5.Considering the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute 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 Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul; (ii) the petitioner shall report before the concerned Court daily at 10.00 am for a period of four weeks, on all working days and thereafter, he shall appear before the trial Court on all future hearing dates without fail.
(iii) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.
(iv) the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
(v) 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]. sd/- 30/08/2016 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, DINDIGUL.
2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AMMAYANAICKANUR POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.
3 THE OFFICER INCHARGE, DISTRICT PRISON, DINDIGUL. 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1. CC to M/S C.ASAITHAMBI Advocate SR.No. 48049 trp JA-DB-SAR.LIB/30.08.2016/3P:6C
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.16053 of 2016 Date :30/08/2016