IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT VS. UNKNOWN

Spread the love

Post Views: 769

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT VS. UNKNOWN

Citation	2014
Date of Judgment	13^th March 2014
Court	Madras high court
Case Type	Criminal Case
Appellant	D. THIAGARAJAN,72 YRS, S\O.K.S. DURAISWAMY290 PAPER MILLS ROAD, PERAMBURCHENNAI 600 011
Respondent	RESPONDENT-1 STATE REP. BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,TIRIVANNAMALAI RESPONDENT-2 STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE TIRUVANNAMALAI TOWN PS., TIRUVANNAMALAI
Bench	MR. JUSTICE P. DEVADASS
Referred	Sections – Cr.P.C. – 209, 209(a), 209(b), 204, 173, 200,190I.P.C. – 302 r/w 34

FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner is currently 72 years of the man who was accused of committal. He was accused of committing the murder of a person, in total 3 persons were accused in the case and many serious allegations have been imposed on them. By the learned counsel of the criminal side. The petitioner has applied for anticipatory bail in a court of law. At the time of the commission of the incident, the petitioner was an inspector of police and at the time of the petition, he was a retired DSP.

ISSUES

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the accused?
Whether the case filled has to be investigated with reference to private cases or public cases with relevant precedents?

ARGUMENTS

The petitioner side of the council has laid down many previous judgments that talk about the current lookout of the case in view of private cases or public cases. The public case basically means a case that will be investigated only when the police final report of the case has been made.

Whereas, a private case is the one where the investigation is held on the complaint of any individual. Furthermore, both cases hold a basic similarity in that in the case of cognizance cases the summons has to be issued in the name of the accused if he is not in the custody of the court or the police.

The learned counsel of the petitioner made reference to the case of Kewal Krishanan v. Suraj Bhan, the accused was granted bail on a similar matter. Similarly, in many other cases referred the learned judge, on the direction of the magistrate commanded the judge to release the accused on bail.

On the respondent side of the council, they were against the anticipatory bail and even on how the matter was being managed. They wanted that the accused should not be released on anticipatory bail and should be given proper imprisonment.

The counsel of the respondent side even made clear that the offenses which are serious in nature should be present in the court of session and thus only on the trial of the magistrate any further specifications should be made in favor of the other party. The petitioner has been guilty of the crime and the case was investigated by government officials previously too.

JUDGEMENT

The order made by the court of law was in favor of the petitioner as in to grant him bail. as he was an old man who was currently 72 years old and he currently was a retired DSP so he holds some dignity in the society where he lives and whenever during the last time the court has summoned him he would always show in court without any delay and not even a single date of the case has been missed by him in his defense too.

The magistrate made clear that the petitioner had to appear in court before the judge within 15 days of receiving the ordered copy of the case. Then the said judge would release the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Petitioner has to pay a sum total of Rs.10,000/- ( TEN THOUSAND ONLY) along with in total 2 sureties on petitioner’s behalf and with the same like amount on the order of the judge.

The judge at his discretion would decide the date with the petitioner on the appearance before the court of justice. Till the disposal of the case in the session court, the bail bond would be in force.

REFERENCES

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/6334971/

written by LAKSHIKA TOMER intern under legal vidhiya.