Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/812/2015disposed of

Rengan v. The Inspector Of Police

2015-01-27Honourable Mr Justice P. N. Prakash2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Twenty Seventh day of January Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice P.N.PRAKASH CRL OP(MD) No.812 of 2015 1 RENGAN 2 KANNAN 3 CHINNA PANDI @ CHOKKANATHAN 4 KARUPPASAMY @ PERIA PANDI 5 VANUMAMAMALAI 6 ESAKKIPANDI @ KATTURAJA ..PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 7 to 10, 13 & 14 Vs.

STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE MOONDRADAIPPU POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.

CRIME NO.156/2014 ..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.S.ANGAPPAN Advocate For Respondent : Mr.A.P.BALASUBRAMANI, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 15.11.2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 307 I.P.C. @ 147, 148, 149, 294(b), 307, 120(b) and 212 I.P.C. in Crime No.156 of 2014 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that these petitioners had clashed with the members of other community and three cases have been registered viz., Cr.No.155 of 2014 for offence under Section 302 I.P.C., Cr.No.156 of 2014 for offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and Cr.No.157 of 2014 for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. It is represented that Karuppasamy @ Peria Pandi (A.10) and Esakkipandi @ Katturaja (A.14) did not have any previous case.

3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side).

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant bail to petitioners 4 and 6(A.10 and A.14) only, since there is no bad antecedents as against these petitioners.

5. Accordingly, the petitioners 4 and 6 are ordered to be released on bail on each of them 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, Nanguneri and on further condition that:

[a] the petitioners 4 and 6 shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of four weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation.

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

[b] the petitioners 4 and 6 shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

[c] the petitioners 4 and 6 shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

[d] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners 4 and 6 in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 4 and 6 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].

7. As regards the petitioners 1,2,3 and 5 are concerned, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. sd/- 27/01/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NANGUNERI, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. 2 -DO-THRO'THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TIRUNELVELI. 3 THE ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT,MADURAI. 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MOONDRADAIPPU POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.

5 THE OFFICER INCHARGE, SUB JAIL, NANGUNERI, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. 6 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, PALAYAMKOTTAI, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.

+1. CC to M/S.M.S.Jeyakarthik, Advocate SR.No.3817 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.812 of 2015 Date :27/01/2015 PBK 28/01/2015 ::2P-8C:

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