Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/23005/2013granted

Sundaram @ Sundararaj v. The Inspector Of Polcie

2013-12-20Honourable Mr Justice M. Sathyanarayanan2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Twentieth day of December Two Thousand Thirteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.SATHYANARAYANAN CRL OP(MD) No.23005 of 2013 SUNDARAM @ SUNDARARAJ ... PETITIONER /SOLE ACCUSED Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLCIE MANAMELKUDI POLICE STATION PUDUKKOTTAI DIST, CR.NO.184/2013 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.M.KRISHNAVENI Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.V.RAJARAJAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who is the sole accused and arrested and remanded to the judicial custody by the respondent police on 30.11.2013 for the alleged commission of offence under Section 302 of IPC, said to have been committed on 22.11.2013, in Crime No.184 of 2013 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The defacto complaint is the wife of the deceased and according to her, the petitioner/accused developed illicit intimacy with her sisterin-law and when it came to the notice of her husband, he went to the house of the accused and warned him and at that time the accused took a wooden lock and attacked him and caused injury by using blade and he was taken to hospital and not responding to the treatment, he died on 27.11.2013.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the offences was said to have been committed on 22.11.2013, the husband of the defacto complainant died only on 27.11.2013, on account of improper treatment and the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged commission of offence and is falsely implicated in this case.

4. Learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) submitted that the deceased went to the house of the accused and questioned about his illegal intimacy with his sister and there was a quarrel and the accused took a wooden lock and attacked him and also caused injury by using blade and that the investigation is pending.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the State and also perused the materials available on record. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

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

bail on executing a personal 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, Aranthangi and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 11.00 a.m, until further orders.

sd/- 20/12/2013 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,ARANTHANGI 2.DO THRO THE CHEIF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PUDKKOTTAI. 3.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

4.THE OFFICER INCHARGE JAIL PUDUKKOTTAI.

5.THE INSPECTOR OF POLCIE MANAMELKUDI POLICE STATION, PUDUKKOTTAI DIST. +1. CC to M/S.M.KRISHNAVENI Advocate SR.No.63927

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.23005 of 2013 Date :20/12/2013 rg.26.12.2013 2p/7c.

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