Murugan v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) DATED:10/06/2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA AND THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R. POORNIMA 1 MURUGAN S/O GURUSAMY CHETTIYAR, 14TH WARD, KARUMARIPURAM, HOSPITAL 2ND STREET, KAMAYAKAVUNDANPATTI, THENI DISTRICT.

... PETITIONER(S) Vs 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE RAYAPPANPATTI POLICE STATION, THENI DISTRICT. CRIME NO. 57/2020 ... RESPONDENT(S) For Petitioners : M/s.Prithiviraj.P.R.

For Respondents: Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar.B.A,B.L, AGP

O R D E R

[Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.] Seeking to suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioner by the Additional District (Fast Track) Court, Theni, vide Judgment dated 26.02..2024 in 1/6

S.C.No.70 of 2020, he has filed this criminal miscellaneous petition.

2. The petitioner stands convicted and sentenced as under: Section of Law Sentence of imprisonment Fine amount Rs.10,000/- i/d to under go six month simple imprisonment 302 I.P.C.

To undergo life imprisonment

3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had let his house for lease to the deceased and after terminating the lease the deceased asked to return the lease amount due to which there was a quarrel between them, hence on 13.02.2020, when the deceased demanded the lease amount from the petitioner, the petitioner/A1 attacked the deceased with knife and A2/wife of the petitioner attacked the deceased with broom and thereby caused his death. Hence the complaint.

4. The Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the alleged incident is said to have happened during a quarrel and it is not outcome of pre meditation. The petitioner was also injured and no explanation has been offered by the prosecution with regard to the injuries suffered by the petitioner. The 2/6

deceased is the aggressor who have come to the house of the petitioner late night at 11.00 pm., and he started quarrel resulting in the occurrence. Further there are several arguable points and the appeal is of year 2024 and the petitioner is the custody from the date of judgment and the likelihood of the appeal being taken up for final hearing in the near future is also not possible and therefore, he prayed for suspension of sentence.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - Police, stated that though the incident had happened in front of the house of the petitioner at 11.00 pm., and the victim suffered five injuries and out of which three are fatal in nature and there are eye witnesses to the said occurrence, thereby, he would vehemently oppose for grant of bail to the petitioner.

6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

7. It is an application of suspension of sentence. We would not propose to delve deep into the evidence at this stage. The incident said to have happened at 11.00 pm., in front of the house of the petitioner and the petitioner has also suffered 3/6

injuries and the injury certificate has been marked as Ex.D.1. However there is no proper explanation given by the prosecution with regard to the injuries sustained by the petitioner. We find that the petitioner has made out the case for grant of suspension of sentence pending appeal.

8. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the substantive sentence of imprisonment alone imposed on the petitioner herein is suspended, subject to the following conditions: i.

The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on executing a bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam.

ii.

The sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Trial Court may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank passbook to ensure their identity.

iii.

The petitioner shall stay at Nagapattinam and report before the Inspector of Police, Nagapattinam Police Station, daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.

4/6

iv.

It is made clear that the petitioner shall not enter into the jurisdictional limits of the respondent Police Station until further orders.

sd/- 10/06/2025 / TRUE COPY / 10 /06/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

AAV TO 1 THE ADDITIONALFAST TRACK COURT, THENI.

2 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, UTHAMAPALAYAM.

3 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THENI DISTRICT. 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE NAGAPATTINAM POLICE STATION.

5 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE RAYAPPANPATTI POLICE STATION, THENI DISTRICT. 6 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

5/6

ORDER IN CRL MP(MD) No.6829 of 2024 IN CRL.A.(MD) No.573 of 2024 Date :10/06/2025 PR/10.06 .2025 6P/7C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 6/6