Thiru R. SAKTHIVEL, BA, BL, PRINCIPAL DIST - District Courts

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

COIMBATORE.

Present: Thiru R. SAKTHIVEL, B.A., B.L.,

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, COIMBATORE.

Thursday, this the 16th

day of July, 2020

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1193/2020

(In C.A.160/2020)

****

C.A.No.160/2020 C.C.1332/2017

(The Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level - II, Coimbatore.)

Offences: u/s.138 of NI Act.

(SI for a period of six months, and to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the

complainant along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum within one month, in

default to undergo SI for a period of three months.)

Merisha @ Amsa (Age years),

W/o.Pechimuthu … Petitioner / Appellant

/vs/

1. The Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore.

2. V. Venkatesan,

S/o. R.Venkitasamy … Respondents

This petition is filed by the petitioner / appellant praying to suspend the

sentence till the disposal of appeal.

This petition is coming on this day for final hearing before this Court in the

presence of Thiru J.Mohan, Advocate for the petitioner / Appellant, and Thiru

M.Kanagaraj, Public Prosecutor, represented for State, upon perusing the

petition and having stood over for consideration till this Court, this Court

pronounced the following:-

ORDER

Heard both side.

The petitioner seeks suspension of sentence pending disposal of appeal.

It appears that the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo SI

for a period of six months and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant

along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum within one month, in default to

undergo SI for a period of three months, for the offence u/s.138 of NI Act, imposed

by the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level-II, Coimbatore,

in C.C.No.1332/2017, dated 07-03-2020.

The learned Public Prosecutor has not raised any serious objection to allow

this petition.

The petitioner has not paid compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- imposed

upon her.

In the petition, it is stated that the conviction and sentence awarded by the

lower Court is not sustainable and this petitioner is having the valid defence and

prayed to suspend the sentence.

This Court has considered the submissions made by either side. Negotiable

Instruments Act, has been amended vide Act 20/2018 w.e.f. 01-09-2018 and

thereby a new section 148 has been inserted in the parent Act. As per the said

amendment, the Appellate Court may order the appellant to deposit such sum

which shall be a minimum of twenty percent of the fine or compensation awarded

by the trial Court. Recently the Hon’ble Apex Court interpreted the Sec.148 of the

Negotiable Instrument Act in Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col.S.S.Deswal Vs

Virender Gandhi [Criminal Appeal Nos.917-944 of 2019, dated 29-05-2019] that

the Appellate Court shall direct the Appellant / Accused to deposit the sum which

shall not be less than 20% of the fine or compensation, either on an application

filed by the original complainant or even on the application filed by the Appellant /

Accused under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. to suspend the sentence.

After considering all the above said aspects and following the dictum laid

down by the Apex Court, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case

and also considering the nature of offence, this Court is inclined to allow this

petition and the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by

the lower Court alone is hereby suspended till disposal of the appeal subject to the

following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail on her executing a bond for

Rs.10,000/- with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial

Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level-I, Coimbatore, within 15 days from the date of this order.

(ii) The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the part of

compensation amount before the lower Court on or before 29-07-2020.

(iii) Final Order in respect of the deposit amount will be passed by the

Appellate Court at the time of disposal of the appeal.

(iv) The petitioner shall report before the trial Court on the 1st working day of

every English calendar month at 10.30 a.m. without fail, until further orders, after

resuming regular Court working.

The appeal is made over to the IVth Additional District & Sessions Court,

Coimbatore. The appeal stands posted to 31-08-2020.

On the failure of the petitioner, to comply with any of the above said

conditions, the suspension granted to her shall stand cancelled automatically and

the Magistrate concerned shall take necessary steps to secure the petitioner /

accused.

This order is typed, corrected and pronounced by me via email on this 16th

day of July, 2020.

Sd/- R. SAKTHIVEL.,

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

COIMBATORE.

CC to ( sent via email):

1. The IVth

Additional District & Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.

2. The Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level - II, Coimbatore.


4. The Petitioner /appellant through her counsel.


COIMBATORE.




day of July, 2020


Mariappan (Age 52 years)

S/o.Karuppannan … Petitioner / Accused No.2

/vs/

State,

State rep by Forest Range

Officer Sirumugai Forest Range Office

WLOR No.1/2020

Offence: u/s.9(1), 51 of Wild Life Protection Act 1972 Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant (The Judicial Magistrate Court, Mettupalayam.)

This petition is filed on behalf of the petitioner to relax the condition which

is already imposed on the petitioner as per the order passed by this Court in

C.M.P.1096/2020, dated 19-03-2020.


presence of Thiru. M.Siva Suresh, Advocate for the petitioner / Accused and

Thiru. M.Kanagaraj, Public Prosecutor, represented for State, upon perusing the

petition submitted via e-mail and also the reply submitted by the Public Prosecutor

through e-mail, having stood over for consideration till this Court, this Court


ORDER

The petitioner filed this petition, seeking relaxation of the condition which is

already imposed on him, as per the order passed by this Court in

C.M.P.1096/2020, dated 19-03-2020.

2. In the petition submitted on behalf of the petitioner, it is stated that on 27-

02-2020, anticipatory bail was granted to this petitioner as per the order in

C.M.P.675/2020 and the petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent

police, daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders. As per the order passed by this

Court, the petitioner has been complying with the condition for a period of 23

days. Thereafter the petitioner filed relaxation petition in C.M.P.1096/2020 and

the said petition was allowed and condition has been modified and the petitioner is

directed to sign before the respondent police weekly twice. As per the said order,

the petitioner has been complying with the order for the past six weeks and during

the time of lockdown, the petitioner was not able to comply the condition. In the

said circumstances, the petitioner comes forward with the present petition to relax

the condition totally.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor sent reply through e-mail wherein he has

stated that initially, anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner as per the order

in C.M.P.675/2020, dated 27-02-2020 and the petitioner is directed to sign before

the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., As per the order passed by this Court, the

petitioner has been complying with the condition. Thereafter the petitioner filed

relaxation petition in C.M.P.1096/2020 and the same was allowed on 19-03-2020.

The petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent police weekly twice. As

per the order passed by this Court, the petitioner has been complying with the

condition for a period from 23-03-2020 to 13-07-2020. It is further stated that the

prosecution has no objection to relax the condition totally.

4. Considering the above said aspects, having regard to the period of

compliance, nature of offence and also considering the prevailing situation, this

Court is inclined to relax the condition totally which is already imposed on the

petition. Further the petitioner is directed to appear before the Court concerned on

all the hearing dates without fail.


day of July, 2020.

Sd/- R. SAKTHIVEL.,


COIMBATORE.



2. The Inspector of Police, Forest Range Officer, Sirumugai Forest Range Office,

Coimbatore.

3. Counsel for the Petitioner / Accused.


COIMBATORE.




day of July, 2020


M. Satya Moorthy (Age 52 years)

S/o. Muthu … Petitioner / Accused

/vs/

State,

through the Inspector of Police,

Valparai Police Station

Crime No.193/2020.

Offence: u/s.409 and 417 of IPC. Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant (The Judicial Magistrate Court, Valparai, Coimbatore.)

This petition is filed on behalf of the petitioner to release him on

Anticipatory bail u/s.438 Cr.P.C.


presence of Thiru. V.Suresh, Advocate for the petitioner / Accused and Thiru.

M.Kanagaraj, Public Prosecutor, represented for State, upon perusing the




ORDER

This Court has perused the both side’s records.

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.193/2020 of Valparai Police

Station, since he is apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for

the alleged offences u/s.409 and 417 IPC, he has filed this petition, seeking grant

of anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the Deputy

Manager of the State Bank of India, Valparai Branch. The petitioner was working

as Branch Manager. While so, during the period from 11-01-2019 to 22-11-2019,

the petitioner has committed the offence of cheating to the tune of Rs.1,47,500/-.

3. In the petition submitted on behalf of the petitioner, it is stated that the

petitioner was working with the complainant bank for the past 27 years. While he

was the Branch Manager in Valparai State Bank Branch, there was an auditing

issue with the bank money for which, this petitioner supposed to take responsibility

as a Branch Manager. It is further stated that the complainant claims that the

amount involved in this case is Rs.1,47,500/- only. But the time of audit, the

complainant bank officers have claimed Rs.1,90,000/-. It is further stated that as a

responsible employee of the bank, the petitioner have settled Rs.1,90,000/- with the

complainant. It is further stated that the petitioner is an innocent and he has been

falsely implicated in this case and he is no way connected with the offence and he

is having permanent residence and he will never abscond and prayed for grant of

anticipatory bail to the petitioner.


stated that the defacto complainant is the Deputy Manager of State Bank of India,

Valparai Branch. The Auditor was sent to the defacto complainant branch from

Main branch for auditing. During the time of audit and on verification of

documents, it was found that during the period 11-01-2019 to 22-11-2019, there

was a shortage of Rs.1,47,500/-. During the above said period, the petitioner was

working as Chief Manager and he is misused his official position and used the

amount for his personal purpose. It is further stated that as of now, no amount has

been recovered and in this case, investigation is not yet completed and in the said

circumstances, if anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, he may try to tamper

the witnesses and hence, the prosecution raised objection to the petition.

5. This Court has considered the averments made in the petition as well as

the reply submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor. The respondent police

registered the case against the petitioner for the alleged offences u/s.409 and 417

IPC. The Deputy Manager of the State Bank of India, Valparai Branch has

preferred a complaint stating that during the time of audit and on verification of

documents, it was found that during the period 11-01-2019 to 22-11-2019, there

was a shortage of Rs.1,47,500/-. During the above said period, the petitioner was

working as Chief Manager and he is misused his official position and used the

amount for his personal purpose. It is the case of the petitioner that the

complainant claims that the amount involved in this case is Rs.1,47,500/- only.

But the time of audit, the complainant bank officers have claimed Rs.1,90,000/-.

Further the petitioner have settled Rs.1,90,000/- with the complainant. It appears

from the reply submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor, as of now, no amount

has been recovered and in this case, investigation is not yet completed.

6. After considering all the above said aspects, considering the nature of

offence, and also considering other circumstances of the case, this Court is

inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the following

conditions:-

(i) Anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner.

(ii) The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.10,000/- in the event of their

arrest or the petitioners shall surrender before the Judicial Magistrate,

Valparai, and execute a bond of Rs.10,000/- within 15 days from the date


(iii) The petitioner shall produce two sureties likesum each to the value of

Rs.10,000/- to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate, Valparai, within 15

days from the date of resuming regular Court working.

(iv) The petitioner is directed to sign before the respondent police daily at

10.00 a.m., until further orders.

(v) The petitioner or his men shall not tamper the evidence.

(vi) The petitioner shall not abscond and he shall co-operate with the

investigation agency as and when required.

(vii) In case of the condition No.(ii) to (vi) are violated, it is open to the

investigating officer to file appropriate application before the learned Judicial

Magistrate for cancellation of bail granted hereby, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji /vs/ State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560].


day of July, 2020.

Sd/- R. SAKTHIVEL.,


COIMBATORE.


1. The Judicial Magistrate, Valparai.


3. The Inspector of Police, Valparai Police Station, Coimbatore District.



COIMBATORE.




day of July, 2020


C. Murugesh (Age 37 years)

S/o.Chinnusamy … Petitioner / Accused

/vs/

State,


K.G. Chavadi Police Station

Crime No.1090/2020

Offence: u/s.302 of IPC. Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant (The Judicial Magistrate Court, Madhukkarai, Coimbatore.)

This petition is filed on behalf of the petitioner to release him on bail u/s.438

Cr.P.C.


presence of Thiru. N.V.S.Murugan, Advocate for the petitioner / Accused and





ORDER


The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1090/2020 of K.G.Chavadi Police

Station, for the alleged offence u/s.302 IPC, he has filed this petition, seeking grant

of bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the VAO of

Thirumalayampalayam village. On 05-06-2020, at about 10.00 a.m., the defacto

complainant came to know that an unknown male dead body was found lying near

Nanjan Ammasai Thottam, Velanthavalam to Othakkal Mandapam Road,

Thirumalayampalayam Village. Immediately, the defacto complainant went to the

spot and during his enquiry, one Saravanan appeared before him and intimated that

on 04-06-2020, at about 7.00 p.m., when he was walking near the place of

occurrence, he noticed that two unknown persons assaulted another unknown

person. After collecting intimation from the said Saravanan, the defacto

complainant lodged complaint and thereafter the present case has been registered.


petitioner has been falsely roped in this case. The petitioner is an innocent and he

is a coolie worker and he is the only bread winner of his family. It is further stated

that the petitioner is having permanent residence and he will not abscond and the

petitioner is ready to abide any condition imposed by this Court and the petitioner

is in judicial custody from 07-06-2020 and prayed to release the petitioner on bail.


stated that the defacto complainant is the VAO of Thirumalayampalayam Village.

On 05-06-2020, the defcto complainant received information about a dead body

which was lying at the place of occurrence and on receipt of that message, the

defacto complainant had gone to the said place and found the dead body of the

deceased with several wound marks. On enquiry, it came to know from one

Saravanan that on the date of occurrence, at about 7.00 p.m., he was walking near

the occurrence place, at that time, he found two numbers of bike, one XL heavy

duty TN and other CT 100 in the place of occurrence and three persons were

fighting each other. The said Saravanan thought that all the three persons were in

drunken mood and fighting each other and had left the place. After collecting

information from the said Saravanan, the defacto complainant preferred complaint

before the respondent police. It is further stated that the respondent police

enquired the said Saravanan and recorded his statement. Thereafter the respondent

police went to the TASMAC shop and enquired the Manager of the TASMAC

shop. Thereafter the respondent police came to know that the deceased is one

Nagamanikkam and he belongs to Pichanoor. Thereafter the respondent police

went to the house of the deceased and showed the photo of the deceased to his wife

and son and later took them to Government Hospital and they identified the

deceased. It is further stated that during the course of further investigation, it came

to know from one Gayathri of Pichanoor village that on 04-06-2020 at 4.00 p.m.,

she saw the deceased with one Pushparaj, who belongs to the same village.

Thereafter the respondent police had caught the said Pushparaj and during the

course of interrogation with him, he had stated that the deceased had consumed

liquor and had gone to Chechi’s Shop for getting Pokkoda. At that time, there

arose some wordy quarrel between one Murugesan / accused herein. Due to that

vengeance, he had followed the deceased in his CT 100 bike and at the place of

occurrence and stopped the bike and picked up quarrel with the deceased. Since

the said accused had started to assault the deceased severely the deceased had fell

down on the ground. The said Pushparaj further stated that out of fear, he had

taken his XL bike and left the deceased and the accused at the place and ran away

from the place. On the next day, he came to know about the death of the deceased.

Later on 07-06-2020, on receipt of information from VAO of

Thirumalayampalayam village, the police had gone to the village and found the

accused who, surrendered before the VAO and gave confession about the murder

done by him on 04-06-2020. Thereafter the respondent police arrested the accused

and remanded him to judicial custody. It is further stated that in this case,

investigation is not yet completed and in the said circumstance, if the petitioner is

released on bail, he may try to threaten the defacto complainant and also try to

tamper the witnesses and hence, the prosecution raised objection to the petition.


the reply submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor. The petitioner has been

remanded to judicial custody for the offence u/s.302 IPC. The petitioner is in

judicial custody from 07-06-2020. According to the petitioner, he is a coolie

worker and he never committed any offence as alleged. It appears from the reply

submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor, the defacto complainant is the VAO.

On the date of occurrence, the defacto complainant received information that an

unknown male dead body was lying in a particular place. Thereafter during the

course of enquiry of one Saravanan, the deceased was identified. After recording

the statement of Saravanan, the respondent police went to TASMAC shop and

enquired the Manager of the shop. Thereafter during the course of enquiry of one

Gayathri, the respondent police came to know that before the occurrence, she saw

the deceased along with one Pushparaj. When the said Pushparaj was interrogated

by the respondent police, it came to know that on the date of occurrence, the

petitioner and the deceased fought each other in the place of occurrence and in that

process, the petitioner assaulted the deceased. Further in this case, investigation is

still pending,


offence, date of arrest, stage of investigation, and also considering other

circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

Hence, this petition is dismissed.


day of July, 2020.

Sd/- R. SAKTHIVEL.,


COIMBATORE.



2. The Inspector of Police, K.G. Chavadi Police Station Coimbatore.



COIMBATORE.




day of July, 2020


C. Manojkumar (Age 26 years)

S/o.Chinnasamy … Petitioner / Accused

/vs/

State,


M1, Periyanaickenpalayam Police Station,

Crime No.746/2020

Offence: u/s. 188, 295 and 294(b) of IPC r/w u/s.3 of TNPPD&L Act. Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant (The Judicial Magistrate Court No.5, Coimbatore.)

The petitioner seeks relaxation of the condition which is already imposed on

him as per the order passed by this Court in C.M.P.1714/2020, dated 19-06-2020.


presence of Tvl. J.Balakrishnan, P.Vinothkumar, Advocates for the petitioner /

Accused, and Thiru. M.Kanagaraj, Public Prosecutor, represented for State,

upon perusing the petition submitted via e-mail and also the reply submitted by the

Public Prosecutor through e-mail, having stood over for consideration till this

Court, this Court pronounced the following:-

ORDER


The petitioner seeks relaxation of the condition which is already imposed on

him as per the order passed by this Court in C.M.P.1714/2020, dated 19-06-2020.


petitioner was enlarged on bail as per the order passed by this Court in

C.M.P.1714/2020, dated 19-06-2020 and the petitioner is directed to sign before

the respondent police daily twice. As per the order passed by this Court, the

petitioner has been complying with the condition for the past 20 days without any

violation. It is further stated that the petitioner is a worker in a company and it is

very difficult for the petitioner to go to his job, due to the compliance of the

condition. Hence, the petitioner comes forward with the present petition to relax

the condition totally.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted his reply through e-mail wherein

he has stated that bail was granted to the petitioner as per the order passed by this

Court in C.M.P.1714/2020, dated 19-06-2020. When at the time of granting bail,

this Court directed the petitioner to produce two sureties like sum each to the value

of Rs.10,000/- to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate No.5, Coimbatore,

within 15 days from the date of resuming regular Court working. Further the

petitioner is directed to sign before the respondent police daily twice. As per the

order passed by this Court, the petitioner has been complying the condition from

22-06-2020 to 15-07-2020. But as of now, the petitioner has not produced sureties

as ordered by this Court. In the said circumstances, the prosecution raised

objection to relax the condition totally.



Court is inclined to modify the condition which is already imposed upon the

petitioner.

5. Accordingly the petitioner is directed to sign before the

respondent police, once in a week i.e., on every Monday at 10.00 a.m.,

until further orders. Further the petitioner is directed to file surety

papers in the drop box placed in the Court campus.


day of July, 2020.

Sd/- R. SAKTHIVEL.,


COIMBATORE.


1. The Judicial Magistrate No.5, Coimbatore.


3. The Inspector of Police, M-1 Periyanaickenpalayam Police Station, Coimbatore.



COIMBATORE.




day of July, 2020


1. Jayaraj (Age 26 years)

S/o.Bannari

2. Shobana

D/o.Bannari

… Petitioners / Accused Nos.2 & 4

/vs/

State,


Sirumugai Police Station,

Crime No.298/2020

Offence: u/s.298(b), 323, 324, 354 and 307 of IPC. Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant (The Judicial Magistrate Court, Mettupalayam.)

The petitioners seek relaxation of the condition which is already imposed on

them as per the order passed by this Court in C.M.P.1747/202 and 1748/2020,

dated 22-06-2020.

This petitions is coming on this day for final hearing before this Court in the

presence of Thiru. S.Raja, Advocate for the petitioners / Accused Nos.2 & 4, and





ORDER



them as per the order passed by this Court in C.M.P.1747/202 and 1748/2020,

dated 22-06-2020.

2. In the petition submitted on behalf of the petitioners, it is stated that

anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioners as per the order passed by this Court

in C.M.P.No.1747/2020 and 1748/2020, dated 22-06-2020 and the petitioners are

directed to sign before the respondent police daily twice. As per the order passed

by this Court, the petitioners have been complying with the condition from 24-06-

2020. The 1st petitioner is the sole bread winner of his family and the 2

nd petitioner

is having two children. Due to the present situation, it is very difficult for the

petitioners to comply the condition. Hence, the petitioners come forward with the

present petition to relax the condition totally.


he has stated that anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioners as per the order

passed by this Court in C.M.P.1747/202 and 1748/2020, dated 22-06-2020. When

at the time of granting anticipatory bail, this Court directed the petitioners to

produce two sureties like sum each to the value of Rs.10,000/- each to the

satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam, within 15 days from the date

of resuming regular Court working. Further the petitioners are directed to sign

before the respondent police daily twice. As per the order passed by this Court, the

petitioners have been complying the condition from 25-06-2020 to 15-07-2020.

But as of now, the petitioners had not produced sureties as ordered by this Court.

In the said circumstances, the prosecution raised objection to relax the condition

totally.




petitioners.

5. Accordingly the petitioners are directed to sign before the


until further orders. Further the petitioners are directed to file surety



day of July, 2020.

Sd/- R. SAKTHIVEL.,


COIMBATORE.


1. The Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam.


3. The Inspector of Police, Sirumugai Police Station, Mettupalayam.

4. Counsel for the Petitioners / Accused persons.


COIMBATORE.




day of July, 2020


Manimegalai (Age 30 years)

W/o. Murugesan … Petitioner / Accused No.2

/vs/

State,


B-3, Crime Police Station,

Crime No.813/2020

Offence: u/s.408, 420 and 120(B) of IPC. Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant (The Judicial Magistrate Court No.5, Coimbatore.)

This petition is filed on behalf of the petitioner to relax the condition which

is already imposed on the petitioner as per the order passed by this Court in

C.M.P.1787/2020, dated 26-06-2020.


presence of Tvl. N.Deepak Prasadh, S.Kowsalya Devi, E.Gokula Priya,

Advocates for the petitioner / Accused No.2, and Thiru. M.Kanagaraj, Public

Prosecutor, represented for State, upon perusing the petition submitted via e-mail

and also the reply submitted by the Public Prosecutor through e-mail, having stood

over for consideration till this Court, this Court pronounced the following:-

ORDER

This Court has perused the both side’s records and heard through Video Conference.

The petitioner seeks relaxation of the condition totally which is already

imposed on her as per the order passed by this Court in C.M.P.1787/2020, dated

26-06-2020.

2. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner appeared before this Court

through Video Conference and submitted that anticipatory bail has been granted to

the petitioner as per the order passed by this Court in C.M.P.1787/2020, dated

26-06-2020 and the petitioner is directed to sign before the respondent police daily

at 10.30 a.m. As per the order passed by this Court, the petitioner has been

complying with the condition without any violation from 10-07-2020. The learned

counsel further submitted that the petitioner is having two children. The petitioner

and her husband went to police station in order to comply with the condition. They

brought their children along with them. Therefore, it is very difficult for the

petitioner to sign before the respondent police along with her children. Hence, the

petitioner comes forward with the present petition to relax the condition totally.


stated that initially, anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner as per the order

in C.M.P.1787/2020, dated 26-06-2020. When at the time of granting anticipatory

bail, the petitioner is directed to produce two sureties like sum each to the value of

Rs.10,000/- to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate No.5, Coimbatore and the

petitioner is directed to sign before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until

further orders. As per the order passed by this Court, the petitioner has been

complying with the condition from 27-06-2020 to 15-07-2020. Further the

petitioner filed surety document as well as undertaking affidavit before the Court

concerned. It is further stated that the prosecution has no objection to relax the

condition totally.



Court is inclined to relax the condition totally which is already imposed on the

petition. Further the petitioner is directed to appear before the Court concerned on

all the hearing dates without fail.


day of July, 2020.

Sd/- R. SAKTHIVEL.,


COIMBATORE.




3. The Inspector of Police, B3 Crime Police Station, Coimbatore.



COIMBATORE.




day of July, 2020


1. R. Manickavasagam (Age 44 years)

S/o.Rajannan

2. D. Samuvel (Age 42 years)

S/o.Devid … Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 & 2

/vs/

State,


Periyanaickenpalayam Police Station,

Crime No.752/2020

Offence: u/s. 294(b), 323, 324, 506(i) of IPC. Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant (The Judicial Magistrate Court No.5, Coimbatore.)


them as per the order passed by this Court in C.M.P.1565/2020, dated 08-06-

2020.


presence of Thiru. R.Kishore Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners / Accused

Nos.1 & 2, and Thiru. M.Kanagaraj, Public Prosecutor, represented for State,

upon perusing the petition submitted via e-mail and also the reply submitted by the



ORDER



them as per the order passed by this Court in C.M.P.1565/2020, dated 08-06-

2020.

2. In the petition submitted on behalf of the petitioners, it is stated that

anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioners as per the order passed by this Court

in C.M.P.1565/2020, dated 08-06-2020 and the petitioners are directed to sign

before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m., until further orders. It is further

stated that the petitioners have been complying with the order passed by this Court

till date without any violation. Due to the compliance of the condition, the

petitioners were not able to attend their work regularly and hence, they come

forward with the present petition to relax the condition totally.


he has stated that anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioners as per the order

passed by this Court in C.M.P.1565/2020, dated 08-06-2020. When at the time of

granting anticipatory bail, this Court directed the petitioners to produce two

sureties like sum each to the value of Rs.10,000/- each to the satisfaction of the

Judicial Magistrate No.5, Coimbatore, within 15 days from the date of resuming

regular Court working. Further the petitioners are directed to sign before the

respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. As per the order passed by this Court, the

petitioners have been complying the condition from 09-06-2020 to 14-07-2020.

But as of now, the petitioners had not produced sureties as ordered by this Court.

In the said circumstances, the prosecution raised objection to relax the condition

totally.




petitioners.

5. Accordingly the petitioners are directed to sign before the


until further orders. Further the petitioners are directed to file surety



day of July, 2020.

Sd/- R. SAKTHIVEL.,


COIMBATORE.




3. The Inspector of Police, Periyanaickenpalayam Police Station, Coimbatore.



COIMBATORE.




day of July, 2020


K.Kavin (Age 27 years)

S/o.Krishnamoorthy … Petitioner / Accused

/vs/

State,


D2, Selvapuram Police Station,

Crime No.1209/2020

Offence: u/s.302 of IPC. Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant

(The Judicial Magistrate Court No.5, Coimbatore.)


Cr.P.C.


presence of Tvl. M.Kalaiselvan, A.Josan, M.Saravanakumar, Advocates for the

petitioner/Accused and Thiru. M.Kanagaraj, Public Prosecutor, represented for

State, upon perusing the petition submitted via e-mail and also the reply submitted

by the Public Prosecutor through e-mail, having stood over for consideration till

this Court, this Court pronounced the following:-

ORDER


The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1209/2020 of D-2 Selvapuram

Police Station, for the alleged offences u/s.302 IPC, he has filed this petition,

seeking grant of bail.

The learned Public Prosecutor sent reply through e-mail wherein he has

stated that reply not received and requested to adjourn this petition to 22-07-2020.

In view of the reply submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor, this petition

is adjourned to 22-07-2020.

Call on 22-07-2020.


day of July, 2020.

Sd/- R. SAKTHIVEL.,


COIMBATORE.



2. The Inspector of Police, D2, Selvapuram Police Station, Coimbatore.



COIMBATORE.




day of July, 2020


Thiyagarajan (Age 35 years)

S/o.Kanthasamy … Petitioner / Accused

/vs/

State,


M4, Thudiyalur Police Station,

Crime No.1396/2020

Offence: u/s.294(b), 324 and 506(2) of IPC. Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant (The Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Coimbatore.)


Cr.P.C.


presence of Thiru. J.Jerom Joseph, Advocate for the petitioner/Accused and





ORDER


The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1396/2020 of M-4 Thudiyalur

Police Station, for the alleged offences u/s.294(b), 324 and 506(ii) IPC, he has filed

this petition, seeking grant of bail.


stated that Thudiyalur Police Station has been locked due to Covid-19. Hence, the

learned Public Prosecutor requested to adjourn this petition to 21-07-2020.



Call on 21-07-2020.


day of July, 2020.

Sd/- R. SAKTHIVEL.,


COIMBATORE.



2. The Inspector of Police, M4 Thudiyalur Police Station, Coimbatore.



COIMBATORE.




day of July, 2020


George Kumar (Age 24 years)

S/o.Jesuraj … Petitioner / Accused

/vs/

State,


Sulur Police Station,

Crime No.1409/2020

Offence: u/s.379 of IPC. Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant (The Judicial Magistrate Court, Sulur.)


Cr.P.C.


presence of Thiru. P.Vijayakumar, Advocate for the petitioner/Accused and





ORDER


The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1409/2020 of Sulur, Police

Station, for the alleged offences u/s.379 IPC, he has filed this petition, seeking

grant of bail.


stated that Sulur Police Station has been locked due to Covid-19. Hence, the




Call on 21-07-2020.


day of July, 2020.

Sd/- R. SAKTHIVEL.,


COIMBATORE.



2. The Inspector of Police, Sulur Police Station, Coimbatore.



COIMBATORE.




day of July, 2020


P. Anguraj

S/o. K.Pushparaj … Petitioner / Accused

/vs/

State,


Bazaar Police Station in (B1-Crime)

Crime No.705/2020

Offence: u/s.406 and 420 of IPC. Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant (The Judicial Magistrate Court No.5, Coimbatore.)


Cr.P.C.


presence of Thiru. Vijay Anand Jeyaraj, Advocate for the petitioner / Accused

and Thiru. M.Kanagaraj, Public Prosecutor, represented for State, upon

perusing the petition submitted via e-mail and also the reply submitted by the



ORDER


The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.705/2020 of Bazaar Police

Station, for the alleged offences u/s.406 and 420 IPC, he has filed this petition,

seeking grant of bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant has handed

over pure gold to the petitioner / accused for jewel work and the petitioner /

accused failed to return the same to the defacto complainant.


petitioner was working for the defacto complainant till 2017. During November,

2016, the petitioner had received Rs.50,000/- from the defacto complainant as

advance for his job work and was not able to repay the same due to his financial

crisis. The defacto complainant started to harass the petitioner by charging

exorbitant interest at the rate of 10% per month from January, 2017 and also

started to treat the petitioner like bonded labour. Since the petitioner was unable to

tolerate the harassment of the defacto complainant, the petitioner attempted to

commit suicide during August, 2017. Fortunately he was admitted in the hospital

and as of now, the petitioner is fighting with his ill-health condition. It is further

stated that thereafter the petitioner sent a legal notice on 29-05-2020 to the defacto

complainant and the same was received by him on 30-05-2020. Further the

petitioner preferred complaint against the defacto complainant before the

Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore and the same was forwarded to the

respondent police. During the time of enquiry, the defacto complainant admitted

his money transaction and denied the claim of exorbitant interest. Therefore the

police officials instructed the defacto complainant to take civil proceedings for

recovery of money. It is further stated that the petitioner is already suffering from

severe trauma and depression. It is further stated that the petitioner is an innocent

and he has been falsely implicated in this case and he never committed any offence

as alleged and he is in judicial custody from 12-06-2020 and prayed to release the

petitioner on bail.


stated that the defacto complainant is running a jewel shop and he is a whole sale

dealer. The defacto complainant is used to make gold jewel and sell to retail shops.

The accused is a goldsmith, doing gold jewel in his workshop. The accused and

defacto complainant are known to each other for 6 years. On the date of

occurrence, the defacto complainant had gone to the workshop of accused and had

given 540 grams of 24 carrot pure gold to make chain. The accused promised that

he will return the chain on 23-05-2020. But the accused failed to do so. Hence, the

deafcto complainant called the accused through phone and enquired the accused

about the gold chain. The accused replied that he will give the finished chain on

the next day. But on the next day i.e., on 24-05-2020 also the accused had not

given the chain. Therefore, on 24-05-2020, in the night hours, the deafcto

complainant contacted the accused and enquired about the chain. At that time, the

accused told that no gold was given to him. Thereafter the petitioner’s mother and one of the relative of the petitioner came to the defacto complainant’s shop and informed that they could not return back the gold or the chain to the defacto

complainant. Thereafter the defacto complainant preferred complaint and the case

has been registered. It is further stated that during the course of investigation, on

receipt of information, on 12-06-2020, the respondent police had gone to the shop

of the accused and arrested him and after arrest, the accused gave confession and

admitted the offence. It is further stated that in this case, investigation is not yet

completed and in the said circumstances, if the petitioner is released on bail, he

may try to threaten the defacto complainant and also try to tamper the witnesses

and hence, the prosecution raised objection to the petition.



remanded to judicial custody for the offence u/s.406 and 420 IPC. The petitioner

is in judicial custody from 12-06-2020. As per the complaint, the defacto

complainant handed over 540 grams of pure gold to the petitioner for making gold

chain. But the petitioner neither returned the pure gold nor make gold chain. It is

the defence of the petitioner that there was some money transaction between the

petitioner and the defacto complainant. The petitioner filed complaint against the

petitioner. Further the petitioner sent a legal notice on 29-05-2020 to the defacto

complainant and the same was received by him on 30-05-2020. It appears from the

reply submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor, on the date of occurrence, the

defacto complainant had gone to the workshop of accused and had given 540

grams of 24 carrot pure gold to make chain. The accused promised that he will

return the chain on 23-05-2020. After repeated demands, the petitioner had not

returned the gold chain to the defacto complainant. Further in this case,

investigation is not yet completed.


offence, period of detention, and also considering other circumstances of the case,

this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following

conditions:-

(i) The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail on his executing a bond for


Magistrate No. 5, Coimbatore.

(ii) The petitioner is directed to file surety document before the Court

concerned in advance and thereafter the learned Magistrate shall allot time to

verify the sureties.

(iii) The petitioner is directed to sign before the respondent police, daily

twice i.e., daily at 10.00 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. until further orders.

(iv) The petitioner or his men shall not tamper the evidence.

(v) The petitioner shall not abscond and he shall co-operate with the


(vi) Violation of any of the condition imposed by this Court will result in

cancellation of the bail.

(vii) In case of the condition No.(i) to (v) are violated, it is open to the




day of July, 2020.

Sd/- R. SAKTHIVEL.,


COIMBATORE.



2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore.


4. The Inspector of Police, Bazaar Police Station in (B1-Crime) Coimbatore.



COIMBATORE.




day of July, 2020

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION Nos.1980/2020 and 1981/2020

Sudheesh.P (Age 30 years)

S/o. Govindan.K … Petitioner in C.M.P.1980/2020 /

Accused

A.Sadham Hussain (Age 28 years)

S/o. Abdul Kareem … Petitioner in C.M.P.1981/2020 / Accused

/vs/

State,


Vadavalli Police Station

Crime No.1380/2020

Offence: u/s.450, 395 and 397 of IPC. Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant (The Judicial Magistrate Court No.6, Coimbatore.)

These two petitions were filed on behalf of the petitioner in the respective

petitions to release them on bail u/s.439 Cr.P.C.

These two petitions were coming on this day for final hearing before this

Court in the presence of Thiru. R.Kalaiarasu, Advocate for the petitioner in

C.M.P.1980/2020 and Tvl. M.Jeyabal and V.Ganesh Babu, Advocate for the

petitioner in C.M.P.1981/2020, and Thiru. M.Kanagaraj, Public Prosecutor,

represented for State, upon perusing the petitions submitted via e-mail and also the

reply submitted by the Public Prosecutor through e-mail, having stood over for

consideration till this Court, this Court pronounced the following:-

ORDER


The petitioner in the respective petitions is the accused in Crime

No.1380/2020 of Vadavalli Police Station, for the alleged offences u/s.450, 395

and 397 IPC, they have filed these two petitions separately, seeking grant of bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 22-05-2020, five persons have been

trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and attacked the inmates of

the house including the defacto complainant and snatched gold ornaments, cell

phones and cash around Rs.8,500/- from them.

3. In the petitions submitted on behalf of the petitioner in the respective

petitions, it is stated that the petitioner in the respective petitions are innocent and

they have been falsely implicated in this case, and they never committed any

offence as alleged and they are in judicial custody from 29-05-2020 and 27-05-

2020 and prayed to release the petitioner in the respective petitions on bail.


stated that there are six accused in this case. The petitioner in C.M.P.1980/2020 is

arrayed as A-5. The petitioner in C.M.P.1981/2020 is arrayed as A-2. A-1, A-4

and A-3 arrested and remanded. A-6 is still absconding. It is further stated that the

defacto complainant is working as Manager in one private car and two wheelers

dealer’s company. On the date of occurrence, A-1 / Sathya had called the defacto

complainat and enquired about purchase of one vehicle for her friend Santhi and

invited the defacto complainant to Santhi’s house. The defacto complainant had also gone to the house of Santhi at 1.30 p.m., Within half an hour, all the 5 accused

persons trespassed into the house of Santhi. At that time, all the accused were

wearing mask and they threatened the defacto complainant by showing knife and

robbed 5 sovereigns of bracelet, 3 ½ sovereigns of chain, cash Rs. 500/- and one

mobile phone worth Rs.10,000/- and also one of the accused threatened threatened

Santhi and robbed 2.5 grams of ear ring, 2.5 grams of finger ring, 2 ½ sovereigns

of chain and Rs.4,000/-, from Sathya and the accused persons had taken Rs.4,000/-

from the house and fled away from the place. It is further stated that during the

course of investigation, the respondent police, by tracking the mobile number of

the Sathya and found that she was also involved in this offence and on 27-05-2020,

the respondent police went to the house of Sathya for enquiry and she accepted the

offence made by her with other accused persons. Thereafter she was arrested and

remanded. Based on the confession of Sathya, and on receipt of one secret

information from informer about A-2 [petitioner in C.M.P.1981/2020], the

respondent police arrested A-2 near Ukkadam Bye-pass and after arrest, he

surrendered one Knife, Rs.25,000/- and one cell phone. On verification of the

photos and videos in the said cell phone, the respondent police came to know that

in the said cell phone, nude state of the accused Sathya was recorded.

Subsequently, based on the confession given by Sathya, other accused persons

were in arrested in various places. As of now, A-6 is not yet arrested. Further in

this case, investigation is not yet completed and previous cases are pending against

the petitioner in C.M.P.1981/2020 and no previous case is reported against the

petitioner in C.M.P.1980/2020. In the said circumstances, if the petitioner in the

respective petitions are released on bail, they may try to escape to any other State

or place and they may try to abscond and it would be so difficult for the

prosecution to find them and hence, the prosecution raised objection to the

petitions.

5. This Court has considered the averments made in the petitions as well as

the reply submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor. The petitioner in

C.M.P.1980/2020 is in judicial custody from 29-05-2020. The petitioner in

C.M.P.1981/2020 is in judicial custody from 27-05-2020. According to the

petitioner in the respective petitions, they have been falsely implicated in this case

and they never committed any offence as alleged. It appears from the reply

submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor, in this case, initially A-1 Sathya

contacted the defacto complainant with regard to purchase of a second hand

vehicle and asked him to come to a particular house. The defacto complainant

went there. Subsequently, all of a sudden, all the accused trespassed into the said

house and committed the offence. After registering the case, during the course of

investigation, the respondent police, by tracking the mobile number of the Sathya

and found that she was also involved in this offence and thereafter she was arrested

and remanded. After arrest, she gave confession and admitted the offence

committed by her along with other accused. Thereafter A-2 [petitioner in

C.M.P.1981/2020] was arrested and from the mobile phone recovered from A-2,

the respondent police verified the said cell phone and found photos of Sathya.

Thereafter some other accused were arrested. So the offence said to have been

committed by the accused persons, is a pre-planned one. Furthermore in this case,

investigation is still pending. Further A-6 is not yet arrested.


offence, and the manner of offence said to have been committed by the accused

persons, date of arrest, stage of investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant bail

to the petitioner in the respective petitions.

Hence, both petitions are dismissed.

This common order is typed, corrected and pronounced by me via email on

this 16th

day of July, 2020.

Sd/- R. SAKTHIVEL.,


COIMBATORE.



2. The Inspector of Police, Vadavalli Police Station Coimbatore.

3. Counsels for the Petitioner in the respective petitions / Accused persons.


COIMBATORE.




day of July, 2020


R. Prasanth (Age 19 years)

S/o.Raja … Petitioner / Accused

/vs/

State,


B1 Bazaar (Crime) Police Station

Crime No.686/2020

Offence: u/s.379 of IPC. Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant (The Judicial Magistrate Court No.5, Coimbatore.)


Cr.P.C.


presence of Thiru. P.Murugavel, Advocate for the petitioner / Accused and





ORDER


The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.686/2020 of B-1 Bazaar Police

Station, for the alleged offence u/s.379 IPC, he has filed this petition, seeking grant

of bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on the date of occurrence, the accused

persons snatched purse from the defacto complainant.


petitioner is in judicial custody for the past 40 days. The petitioner filed bail

petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.5, Coimbatore and the same was

dismissed by the learned Magistrate on 09-07-2020. It is further stated that the

petitioner is an innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case and he

never committed any offence as alleged and prayed to release the petitioner on

bail.


stated that there are two accused in this case. The petitioner is arrayed as A-1.

A-2 arrested and remanded. On the day of occurrence, when the defacto

complainant was going by walk near the place of occurrence, the accused had

come near the defacto complainant and asked the time. The defacto complainant

was looking the watch. At that time, the both accused had taken the purse of the

defacto complainant and tried to escape from there. But with the help of the public

and others, the defacto complainant had caught the accused persons red-handedly

and surrendered them to respondent police. Thereafter case has been registered.

After arrest, the accused gave confession and admitted the offence. It is further

stated that the stolen property recovered and investigation is still pending and no

previous case is reported against the petitioner. In the said circumstances, if the

petitioner is released on bail, he may try to abscond and hence, the prosecution

raised objection to the petition.



remanded to judicial custody for the offence u/s.379 IPC. The petitioner is in

judicial custody from 06-06-2020. According to the petitioner, he has been falsely

implicated in this case and he never committed any offence as alleged. It appears

from the reply submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor, during the time of

occurrence, when the accused persons tried to snatch the purse of the defacto

complainant, the defacto complainant and other caught the accused persons red-

handedly. Further in this case, stolen property recovered and investigation is not

yet completed. No previous case is reported against the petitioner.


offence, period of detention, since stolen property has been recovered, and being

the first offender, and also considering other circumstances of the case, this Court

is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail on his executing a bond for


Magistrate No.5, Coimbatore.

(ii) The petitioner is directed to file surety document before the Court

concerned in advance and thereafter the learned Magistrate shall allot time to

verify the sureties.

(iii) The petitioner is directed to sign before the respondent police, daily at


(iv) The petitioner or his men shall not tamper the evidence.

(v) The petitioner shall not abscond and he shall co-operate with the


(vi) Violation of any of the condition imposed by this Court will result in

cancellation of the bail.

(vii) In case of the condition No.(i) to (v) are violated, it is open to the


Magistrate for cancellation of bail granted hereby, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in P.K.Shaji /vs/ State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560].


day of July, 2020.

Sd/- R. SAKTHIVEL.,


COIMBATORE.



2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore.


4. The Inspector of Police, B-1 Bazaar (Crime) Police Station Coimbatore.



COIMBATORE.




day of July, 2020


R.Ruthresh (Age about 28 years)

S/o.Rajendran … Petitioner / Accused No.1

/vs/

State,


All Women Police Station (Central)

Crime No.6/2020

Offence: u/s.498A, 323 of IPC and 67A of IT Act 2002. Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant (The Additional Mahila Court, Coimbatore.)


Cr.P.C.


presence of Thiru. J.Jerom Joseph, Advocate for the petitioner/Accused No.1

and Tvl. P.Ramesh Babu and B.Vinoth, Advocates for the defacto complainant

[C.M.P.No.2019/2020] and Thiru. M.Kanagaraj, Public Prosecutor, represented

for State, upon perusing the petition submitted via e-mail and also the reply

submitted by the Public Prosecutor through e-mail, having stood over for


ORDER


The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.6/2020 of AWPS (Central) Police

Station, for the alleged offences u/s.498(A), 323 of IPC and Sec.67A of IT Act,

2002, he has filed this petition, seeking grant of bail.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sent Mail stating that he /

she does not press the petition.

Mail sent by the petitioner’s counsel is recorded.

In view of the mail sent by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this

petition is dismissed as not pressed.


day of July, 2020.

Sd/- R. SAKTHIVEL.,


COIMBATORE.



2. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station (Central) Coimbatore.


4. Counsel for the defacto complainant.


COIMBATORE.




day of July, 2020


M. Irshad @ Mohamed Irshad @ Eattan (Age 23 years)

S/o.Majeed … Petitioner / Accused No.4

/vs/

State,


D3, Podanur Police Station

Crime No.1173/2020

Offence: u/s.394, 511 @ 395, 397 of IPC Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant (The Judicial Magistrate Court, Madukkarai.)


Cr.P.C.


presence of Thiru. H.Noorul Ameen Advocate for the petitioner/Accused No.4

and Thiru. M.Kanagaraj, Public Prosecutor, represented for State, upon




ORDER


The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1173/2020 of D-3 Podanur Police

Station, for the alleged offences u/s.394, 511 IPC @ Sec.395 and 397 IPC, he has

filed this petition, seeking grant of bail.


requested to adjourn this petition to 20-07-2020.

At request of the learned Public Prosecutor, this petition is adjourned to

20-07-2020.

Call on 20-07-2020.


day of July, 2020.

Sd/- R. SAKTHIVEL.,


COIMBATORE.



2. The Inspector of Police, D3, Podanur Police Station Coimbatore.



COIMBATORE.




day of July, 2020


Rajendran (Age 56 years)

S/o. Karupannan … Petitioner / Accused

/vs/

State,


Pollachi CSCID Police Station

Crime No.114/2020

Offence: u/s.6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) order 1982 r/w 7(1)(a)(ii) of E.C. Act, 1955. Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant (The Judicial Magistrate Court No.4, Coimbatore.)




presence of Thiru. K.Sakthivel, Advocate for the petitioner/Accused and





ORDER


The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.114/2020 of Pollachi CSCID

Police Station, since he is apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police

for the alleged offences u/s.6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w Sec.7(1)(a)(ii)

of E.C. Act, 1955, he has filed this petition, seeking grant of anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is in possession of 105

kgs of PDS rice unauthorisedly.


petitioner is an innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case and prayed

for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.


stated that on receipt of secret information about the sales of Essential

commodities illegally the respondent police went to the place of occurrence, they

found some plastic bags arranged there. While checking them, the respondent

police found 3 plastic polythene bags each contain 35 kgs of PDS Rice - totally

105 kgs of PDS rice. On enquiry, it came to know that the accused has bought the

said rice from the ration card holder for lower price and trying to sell it in open

market for higher price in Kerala State. The respondent police seized the rice and

registered the case. It is further stated that in this case, investigation is not yet

completed and no previous case is reported against the petitioner and in the said

circumstance, if anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, he may try to escape

and it would be difficult for the prosecution to find the accused, and hence, the

prosecution raised objection to the petition.


the reply submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor. The case has been registered

against the petitioner for illegal possession of 105 kgs of PDS rice. It appears from

the reply submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor, in this case, property has

been recovered. Further in this case, investigation is not yet completed and no

previous case is reported against the petitioner.


offence, since property recovered, and being the first offender, also considering

other circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail

to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:-


(ii) The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.10,000/- in the event of his

arrest or the petitioner shall surrender before the Judicial Magistrate No.4,

Coimbatore, and execute a bond of Rs.10,000/- within 15 days from the date



Rs.10,000/- to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate No.4, Coimbatore,

within 15 days from the date of resuming regular Court working.










day of July, 2020.

Sd/- R. SAKTHIVEL.,


COIMBATORE.




3. The Inspector of Police, Pollachi CSCID Police Station.



COIMBATORE.




day of July, 2020


Partheban (Age 30 years)

S/o.Frances Rajan … Petitioner / Accused No.3

/vs/

State,


E-3, Saravanampatty Police Station

Crime No.1586/2020

Offence: u/s.75(1)(c) of TNCP Act, and u/s.147, 148, 387 and 506(ii) of IPC. Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant (The Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Coimbatore.)




presence of Tvl. T.Muthumalai Sivakumar, S. Aasathkumar Advocates for the

petitioner/Accused and Thiru. M.Kanagaraj, Public Prosecutor, represented for

State, upon perusing the petition submitted via e-mail and also the reply submitted

by the Public Prosecutor through e-mail, having stood over for consideration till

this Court, this Court pronounced the following:-

ORDER


The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1586/2020 of Saravanampatti


for the alleged offences u/s.75(1)(c) of TNCP Act and u/s.147, 148, 387 and

506(ii) IPC, he has filed this petition, seeking grant of anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is a collection

agent in private finance company. On 19-06-2020, at about 12 O’clock in the noon hours, the defacto complainant was standing in front of V.G.Bakery with a cash

bag containing cash of Rs.40,000/-. At that time, the accused persons came there

and picked up quarrel with the defacto complainant and abused the defacto

complainant by using filthy language and threatened the defacto complainant with

dire consequences and in addition to that the accused persons taken away the cash

of Rs.40,000/-.


petitioner is the brother of one Stephen Raj, who was arrested. It is further stated

that the petitioner is an innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case and

he never committed any offence as alleged and prayed for grant of anticipatory

bail.


stated that 13 accused persons were involved in this case. The petitioner is

arrayed as A-2. A-4, A-7, A-8 and A-9 were arrested and remanded. A-1, A-3

and A-11 were still absconding. A-5, A-6 and A-10 were arrested and remanded.

A-12 and A-13 were also arrested and remanded. It is further stated that the

defacto complainant is doing working as a collection in one private finance

company. On the date of occurrence, when the defcato complainant was standing

in front of the place of occurrence with his bag containing Rs.40,000/- cash. At

that time, all the accused persons, who were known persons to the defacto

complainant had come to the place of occurrence, on knowing that the defacto

complainant was in possession of huge money. They came with knife and

wooden log and threatened the defacto complainant and had robbed the cash and

has also threatened the defacto complainant and his friends with dare

consequences and fled away from the place. Later on 20-06-2020, on receipt of

secret information, the respondent police had gone near Ganapathy Bus Stop and

found the accused persons standing in front of Bus No:3 Bus Stop as a gang and

chatting. On seeing the police, they had tried to escape. But the police party

rounded up and caught four persons initially and subsequently other four accused

were arrested near Thudiyalur Railway Gate. After arrest, the accused gave

confession and admitted the offence. It is further stated that the accused are

regular offender and four previous cases are pending against the petitioner and in

this case, investigation is not yet completed and as of now, no recovery was made

and in the said circumstances, if anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, he

may try to escape to some other place and also try to threaten the victim and also

try to tamper the witnesses and hence, the prosecution raised objection to the

petition.


the reply submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor. According to the petitioner,

he has been falsely implicated in this case and he never committed any offence.

Per contra, it appears from the reply submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor,

during the time of occurrence, the accused persons robbed cash of Rs.40,000/-

from the defacto complainant. Further except the present case, four previous

cases are pending against the petitioner. Further in this case, no amount was

recovered and investigation is still pending.


offence, stage of investigation, considering the number of cases pending against

the petitioner, and also considering other circumstances of the case, this Court is

of the considered view that this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to the

petitioner.



day of July, 2020.

Sd/- R. SAKTHIVEL.,


COIMBATORE.



2. The Inspector of Police, E3, Saravanampatty Police Station Coimbatore.



COIMBATORE.




day of July, 2020


1. Jothish @ Jothishkumar (Age 25 years)

S/o. Ravi

2. Nagaraj (Age 23 years)

S/o. Murugesan

3. Nandhu @ Nandhakumar (Age 20 years)

S/o. Manickam

… Petitioners / Accused Nos. 3, 6 and 8

/vs/

State,


D-3, Podhanur Police Station,

Crime No.1168/2020

Offence: u/s.147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) of IPC. Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant (The Judicial Magistrate, Madukkarai.)

This petition is filed on behalf of the petitioners to release them on

anticipatory bail u/s.438 of Cr.P.C.


presence of Tvl. P.Krishnaraj, S.Rameshkumar and S.Sruthi, Advocates for the

petitioners / Accused Nos. 3, 6 and 8, and Thiru M.Kanagaraj, Public

Prosecutor, represented for State, upon perusing the petition submitted via e-mail

and also the reply submitted by the Public Prosecutor through e-mail, having stood

over for consideration till this Court, this Court pronounced the following:-

ORDER


The petitioners are the accused persons in Crime No.1168/2020 of D-3,

Podhanur Police Station, since they are apprehending arrest at the hands of the

respondent police, for the alleged offences u/s. 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, 324

and 506(ii) of IPC, they have filed this petition, seeking grant of anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the brother

of the victim. On the date of occurrence, the petitioners and other accused joined

together and abused the victim by using filthy language and assaulted the victim by

using hands, iron rod and beer bottle and caused injuries to the victim and in

addition to that they threatened the victim with dire consequences.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that in this

case, co-accused were released on bail by the lower Court. The learned counsel

further submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely

implicated in this case and they never committed any offence as alleged and the

petitioners are having permanent residence and they will never abscond and prayed

for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.


stated that there are eight accused in this case. The petitioners are arrayed as A-3,

A-6 and A-8. A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5 and A-7 were arrested and remanded and

released on bail by the lower Court. It is further stated that the defacto

complainant is the brother of the victim. On receipt of information from the

Government hospital, Coimbatore about the victim, the respondent police went

there. Since the victim was in unconscious stage, they informed his relatives and

returned to station. Thereafter the brother of the victim came to the police station

and preferred complaint and thereafter FIR has been registered. It is further stated

that the victim and his brother are auto drivers. A-1 was well known person and

distance relative to the victim. Before one year, A-1 loved the victim’s sister. But due to some difference of opinion, A-1 left her and married another girl. Due to

that there is some vengeance between A-1 and the victim. There arose some

quarrel regularly between them. On the date of occurrence, the victim and the

defcato complainant was in the place of occurrence. At that time, A-1 & his

friends i.e., other accused came to the place and started to pick up quarrel with the

victim and abused the victim in filthy languages. Further the accused persons

started to assaulted the victim by using their hands, iron rod and A-1 took the bear

bottle and assaulted the victim and caused injuries to the victim. Due to which, the

victim fell down and the accused persons fled away from that place. Thereafter the

victim was admitted in the hospital on 29-06-2020 and discharged on 04-07-2020.

It is further stated that later on 30-06-2020, on receipt of information from

informer, the respondent police arrested A-1 and on enquiry, it came to know about

the offence committed by them. It is further stated that in this case, investigation is

not yet completed and some more accused are yet to be arrested in the said

circumstances, if anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, they may try to

commit same type of offence and hence, the prosecution raised objection to the

petition.


the reply submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor and also considered the

submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner through Video

Conference. The alleged occurrence happened due to the wordy quarrel between

the parties. According to the petitioners, they have been falsely implicated in this

case. Further co-accused were released on bail by the lower Court. It appears

from the reply submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor, during the time of

occurrence, the accused persons assaulted the victim by using their hands, iron rod

and beer bottle and caused injuries to the victim. The victim got treatment for

the same for a period of six days. Further in this case, investigation is not yet

completed and some more accused are yet to be arrested.


offence, period of treatment taken, and also considering other circumstances of the

case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject

to the following conditions:-

(i) Anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners.

(ii) The petitioners shall execute a bond for Rs.10,000/- each in the event of

their arrest or the petitioners shall surrender before the Judicial Magistrate,

Madukkarai, and execute a bond of Rs.10,000/- each within 15 days from the

date resuming regular Court working.

(iii) The petitioners shall produce two sureties likesum each to the value of

Rs.10,000/- each to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate, Madukkarai,


(iv) The petitioners are directed to sign before the respondent police daily

twice i.e., daily at 10.00 a.m., and 4.00 p.m., until further orders.

(v) The petitioners or their men shall not tamper the evidence.

(vi) The petitioners shall not abscond and they shall co-operate with the






day of July, 2020.

Sd/- R. SAKTHIVEL.,


COIMBATORE.


1. The Judicial Magistrate, Madukkarai.


3. The Inspector of Police, D-3 Podhanur Police Station, Coimbatore.



COIMBATORE.




day of July, 2020


1. Nagarathinam (Age 62 years)

S/o.Kanthasamy

2. Venkadesh.R (Age 21 years)

S/o.Ramachandran

3. Sivaganesh.R (Age 22 years)

S/o.Rajendran

4. Kalaiarasi (Age 25 years)

D/o.Rajendran

5. Vishwanathan (Age 47 years)

S/o.Natchimuthu

6. Mohanraj.M (Age 47 years)

S/o.Murugeshan

7. Uma Maheswari Arusamy (Age 33 years)

W/o.Rajkumar

8. Rajkumar.S (Age 31 years)

S/o.Selvaraj

9. Balasubramaniam.K (Age 53 years)

S/o.Krishnasamy

… Petitioners / Accused No.14, 16, 19, 21, 24, 26, 28, 29 and 31

/vs/

State,


City Crime Branch Coimbatore

Crime No.3/2020

Offence: u/s.120(b), 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC.

Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant (The Judicial Magistrate Court No.7, Coimbatore.)




presence of Thiru. R.Sivakumar, Advocate for the petitioners/Accused No.14, 16,

19, 21, 24, 26, 28, 29 and 31 and Thiru. M.Kanagaraj, Public Prosecutor,

represented for State, upon perusing the petition submitted via e-mail and also the

reply submitted by the Public Prosecutor through e-mail, having stood over for


ORDER


The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.3/2020 of CCB, Police Station,

since they are apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the

alleged offences u/s.120(B), 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, they have filed this

petition, seeking grant of anticipatory bail.

The learned Public Prosecutor appeared before this Court and represented

that due to Covid-19, affected by one of the police official in CCB, the said Station

has been locked and hence, the learned Public Prosecutor requested to adjourn this

petition to 20-03-2020.

At request of the learned Public Prosecutor, this petition is adjourned to

20-07-2020.

Call on 20-07-2020.


day of July, 2020.

Sd/- R. SAKTHIVEL.,


COIMBATORE.



2. The Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch Coimbatore.



COIMBATORE.




day of July, 2020


Vinith @ Manikandan (Age 24 years)

S/o.Krishnasamy … Petitioner / Accused No.2

/vs/

State,


D2, Selvapuram Police Station

Crime No.1411/2020

Offence: u/s.294(b), 323, 324 506(ii) of IPC. Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant (The Judicial Magistrate Court No.5, Coimbatore.)




presence of Thiru. S.Rajendran, Advocate for the petitioner / Accused and





ORDER


The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1411/2020 of D-2 Selvapuram


for the alleged offences u/s.294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) IPC, he has filed this

petition, seeking grant of anticipatory bail.


stated that reply not received.



Call on 22-07-2020.


day of July, 2020.

Sd/- R. SAKTHIVEL.,


COIMBATORE.



2. The Inspector of Police, D2, Selvapuram Police Station Coimbatore.



COIMBATORE.




day of July, 2020


1. M. Suresh Kumar (Age 24 years)

S/o.Mariyan

2. S. Suresh (Age 29 years)

S/o.Senniappan

3. P. Vignesh Kumar (Age 24 years)

S/o.Palanisamy

… Petitioners / Accused No.3, 4, 7

/vs/

State,


Sulur Police Station

Crime No.1478/2020

Offence: u/s.147, 341, 353, 269 & 291 of IPC. Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant (The Judicial Magistrate Court, Sulur.)




presence of Thiru. M.S.Giri Dharan, Advocate for the petitioners/Accused No.3,

4, 7 and Thiru. M.Kanagaraj, Public Prosecutor, represented for State, upon




ORDER


The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.1478/2020 of Sulur Police

Station, since they are apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for

the alleged offences u/s.147, 341, 353, 269 and 291 IPC, they have filed this

petition, seeking grant of bail.






Call on 21-07-2020.


day of July, 2020.

Sd/- R. SAKTHIVEL.,


COIMBATORE.



2. The Inspector of Police, Sulur Police Station Coimbatore.



COIMBATORE.




day of July, 2020


Maniyarasu (Age 54 years)

S/o.Suppaiyan … Petitioner / Accused

/vs/

State,



Crime No.103/2020

Offence: u/s.6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) order 1982 r/w 7(1)(a)(ii) of E.C. Act, 1955. Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant (The Judicial Magistrate Court No.4, Coimbatore.)




presence of Thiru. S.Rajendran, Advocate for the petitioner / Accused and





ORDER






2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is in possession of 105

kgs of PDS rice unauthorisedly.


petitioner is an innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case and prayed

for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.



commodities illegally the respondent police went to the place of occurrence, they

found some plastic bags arranged there. While checking them, the respondent

police found 3 plastic polythene bags each contain 35 kgs of PDS Rice - totally

105 kgs of PDS rice. On enquiry, it came to know that the accused has bought the

said rice from the ration card holder for lower price and trying to sell it in open

market for higher price in Kerala State. The respondent police seized the rice and

registered the case. It is further stated that in this case, investigation is not yet

completed and no previous case is reported against the petitioner and in the said

circumstance, if anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, he may try to escape

and it would be difficult for the prosecution to find the accused, and hence, the

prosecution raised objection to the petition.



against the petitioner for illegal possession of 105 kgs of PDS rice. It appears from





offence, since property recovered, and being the first offender, also considering

other circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail

to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:-


(ii) The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.10,000/- in the event of his

arrest or the petitioner shall surrender before the Judicial Magistrate No.4,

Coimbatore, and execute a bond of Rs.10,000/- within 15 days from the date



Rs.10,000/- to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate No.4, Coimbatore,











day of July, 2020.

Sd/- R. SAKTHIVEL.,


COIMBATORE.




3. The Inspector of Police, Pollachi CSCID Police Station Coimbatore.



COIMBATORE.




day of July, 2020


Anand Prabhu (Age 27 years)

S/o.Palanisamy … Petitioner / Accused No.2

/vs/

State,



Crime No.120/2020

Offence: u/s.6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) order 1982 r/w Sec.7(1)(a)(ii) of E.C. Act 1955. Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant (The Judicial Magistrate Court No.4, Coimbatore.)




presence of Thiru. R.Dhayalan, Advocate for the petitioner / Accused and





ORDER






2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner tried to transport 1200

kgs of PDS rice.


petitioner is an innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case and he

never committed any offence as alleged and prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to

the petitioner.



commodities illegally the respondent police went near the place of occurrence, and

found one pick up vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL 09 W 2017 and some plastic bags

were arranged in the vehicle. On checking the bags, it was found that there was 48

plastic polythene bags each contain 25 kgs of PDS Rice - totally 1200 kgs of

PDS rice. On seeing the police party, the driver of the vehicle fled away from that

place. Late on enquiry, it came to know that the accused has bought the said rice

from the ration card holder for lower price and trying to sell it in open market for

higher price in Kerala State. The respondent police seized the rice and registered

the case. It is further stated that in this case, investigation is not yet completed and

no previous case is reported against the petitioner and in the said circumstance, if

anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, he may try to escape and it would be

difficult for the prosecution to find the accused, and hence, the prosecution raised

objection to the petition.



against the petitioner for illegal transportation of 1200 kgs of PDS rice. Normally

PDS rice is used to distribute to the poor people. In this case, the petitioner /

accused said to have been tried to transport 1200 kgs of PDS rice. It appears from




6. After considering all the above said aspects, even though no previous case

is reported against the petitioner, considering the nature of offence, quantum of

PDS rice involved and also considering other circumstances of the case, this Court

is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.



day of July, 2020.

Sd/- R. SAKTHIVEL.,


COIMBATORE.



2. The Inspector of Police, Pollachi CSCID Police Station Coimbatore.



COIMBATORE.




day of July, 2020


M. Dhukaram (Age 46 years)

S/o.Mothilalji … Petitioner / Accused

/vs/

State,


Sulur Police Station

Crime No.1481/2020

Offence: u/s.7, 20(1) of COTPA Act 2003 and r/w Sec.328 of IPC. Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant (The Judicial Magistrate Court, Sulur.)




presence of Thiru. M.Dharmarajan, Advocate for the petitioner/Accused and





ORDER


The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1481/2020 of Sulur Police Station,

since he is apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged

offences u/s.7 and 20 of COTPA Act, 2003 r/w Sec.328 of IPC, he has filed this

petition, seeking grant of bail.






Call on 21-07-2020.


day of July, 2020.

Sd/- R. SAKTHIVEL.,


COIMBATORE.



2. The Inspector of Police, Sulur Police Station, Coimbatore.



COIMBATORE.




day of July, 2020


Chinnadurai (Age 34 years)

S/o.Rajendran … Petitioner / Accused

/vs/

State,


E3, Saibaba Colony Police Station

Crime No.not known.

Offence: u/s.420 of IPC. Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant (The Judicial Magistrate Court No.7, Coimbatore.)




presence of Thiru. T.Maniarasu, Advocate for the petitioner / Accused and





ORDER


The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail for the alleged offence u/s.420 IPC.


stated that no case is registered and no FIR is pending against the petitioner.

In view of the reply submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor, as of now,

no case is registered and no FIR is pending against the petitioner. Hence, there is

no apprehension of arrest.



day of July, 2020.

Sd/- R. SAKTHIVEL.,


COIMBATORE.



2. The Inspector of Police, E3, Saibaba Colony Police Station Coimbatore.


C.M.P.2019/2020 [Intervening petition to C.M.P.1983/2020]

Dated:16-07-2020

In view of the order passed in C.M.P.1983/2020, this petition is closed.

Sd/- R. SAKTHIVEL.,


COIMBATORE.



2. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station (Central) Coimbatore.


4. Counsel for the defacto complainant.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE No-IV, COIMBATORE.

PRESENT : Thiru. K.R. Kannan,B.A., B.L.,

Judicial Magistrate No.VI,

Judicial Magistrate No.IV (FAC),

Coimbatore.

C.M.P. No. 205/2020

in

Cr. No. 94/2020

Thuresday, the 16th day of July 2020

Muthukutty, S/o. Sulaiman .. Petitioner /Accused

/ VERSUS / State Rep. By, Inspector of Police,CSCID, Coimbatore Police Station Cr.No.94/2020U/s. 6(4) TNSC (RDCS) order 1982 r/w 7(1) a(ii) EC Act 1955 .. Respondent/Complainant

ORDER

The bail application in CMP No.205/2020 were received by this court

through e-mail. The respondent/police submitted their reply through e-mail on

16/07/2020.

After carefully consideration of the bail application and reply submitted by

the respondent/police this court passed the following order,

The petitioner was arrested and remanded to Judicial custody U/s. 6(4)

TNSC (RDCS) order 1982 r/w 7(i) a(ii) EC act 1955 on 10.07.2020. For the past 7

days the petitioner is in Judicial custody.

In the bail application it was submitted the petitioner has not committed

any offence as alleged by the respondent police. It was further submitted if the

petition is allowed, the petitioner is ready to furnish necessary sureties and

assured he will not abscond and tamper the evidence.

In the reply the respondent/police has stated as per the secret information

at the occurrence place, the respondent police seized 1100 kg of PDS rice from

the petitioner. It was further stated on enquiry the respondent police seized

1100kg of PDS rice from the petitioner. The respondent police further

submitted if the petition is allowed the petitioner will again commit the same

kind of offence and further stated the investigation is still pending and asked to

dismiss the application.

On perusal of the records and as per the reply submitted by the respondent

police the case has been registered against the petitioner since he is inpossession

of 1100 kg of PDS rice. Hence, considering the nature of offence and quantum of

PDS rice involved in this case and considering the objections raised by the

prosecution this court is not inclined to grant bail and the same is hereby

dismissed.

The order is typed, corrected and pronounced by me via email on 16th JULY

of 2020.

Sd/-K.R.Kannan

Judicial Magistrate No.IV,(FAC) Coimbatore.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE / PRESIDING OFFICER,

SPECIAL COURT FOR ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT CASES, COIMBATORE.

PRESENT : TMT. T. MALARVALANTINA,M.L., ADDTIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE / PRESIDING OFFICER,


THURSDAY, THE 16th DAY OF JULY 2020.

Spl. C.M.P.NO. 133 /2020Roselin,

W/o Deivam. ...Petitioner/accused No.3.

Vs.

State Rep by Inspector of Police,

Tiruppur North Police Station,

Crime No.1528/2019. ... Respondent/ Complainant.

This is a bail application filed on 06.07.2020 u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. r/w 37 of

NDPS Act by Advocates Tmt. S. Valarmathi, on behalf of the petitioner/accused

No.3 and Thiru S.P.Chandrasekar, Special Public Prosecutor, for the Respondent/

Complainant and on perusing the documents , this court passed the following:

ORDER

The petitioner/accused No.3 is in judicial custody from 31.12.2019 for an

offence U/s.8(c) r/w 20(b) (ii) (C) and 25 of NDPS Act.

2. The case of the prosecution is that in this case Accused No.1 was

unlawfully transporting 26.000kgms of ganja in a two wheeler Hero Honda

Splender bearing Registration No. TN 58 AH 7114 and Accused No.2 and 3 were

unlawfully transporting 25.000kgms of ganja in a two wheeler Suzuki Access

bearing Registration No. TN 39 BE 7371(Totally 51.000kgms of ganja)

respectively for sale.

3. In view of the nation vide lock down, for Covid 19 virus pandemic, to

avoid physical contacts and to maintain social distancing courts in Tamil Nadu

are function through virtual mode. Now the lock down has been extended

2

till 31.07.2020. Hence the petitioners has filed these two petition through e-mail

to this court's e-mail account. Hence the bail application filed on line was taken

on file, and assigned a Special CMP Nos. 133/2020 .

4. On behalf the petitioner/accused No.3, the learned counsel for the

petitioner/accused submitted this written bail petition as follows:

The respondent/complainant has registered a case against the petitioner/

accused No.3 for an alleged offence U/s.8(c) r/w 20(b) (ii) (C) of NDPS Act. The

petitioner is remanded to judicial custody on 31.12.2019. The petitioner/accused's

counsel submitted that the allegations are false and baseless. The petitioner was

newly married and she was suffering from ill health. The 2nd accused is her

relative. She has come to her relative's home as a guest and she is innocent. The

petitioner/3rd accused made an easy vicitm because of the previous enemity the

respondent police. She has been falsely arrayed as an accused in this case.

She is having permanent residence and he will not abscond. She will not tamper

with the prosecution witnesses. She is ready to abide by any condition imposed

by this Honourable Court. She is willing to produce sureties as directed by this

Honourable Court. The bail petition was dismissed as per this court's order in

CMP No. 29/2020. Further he submitted that the Gundas case was filed on

03.02.2020. The Gundas case was dismissed by the Honourable High Court at

Madras. Therefore the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to release the

petitioner/ accused No.3 on bail.

5. Notice issued to the Special Public Prosecutor.

6. The Special Public Prosecutor submitted a written objection that the

accused is charged u/s 8(c) r/w20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act. The accused

are arrested and remanded on 31.12.2019 along with another accused No.2

Tamilselvi. On 31.12.2019 at about 14.00hrs A1 Mayee @ Chinnan was unlawfully

transporting 26kgs of ganja in a Hero Honda motor cycle bearing No. TN 56 AH

3

7114 and A2 Tamilselvi and A3 Rosaline were also unlawfully transporting 25kgs

of ganja in a Suzuki Access Two wheeler bearing No.TN 39 BE 7371 at Anaikadu

Pirivu, Uthukuli Road. All the said three accused jointly transporting 51kgs of

ganja in two two wheelers.

The above said accused are ganja sellers. If the accused are released on bail

again they will commit the same offence in future and spoil the society. The offence

committed by the above accused is a crime against the society. The quantity of

ganja involved in this case is a commercial quantity. Section 37 of NDPS Act is a

bar to release the accused on bai. The accused is not having permanent residence

in Coimbatore. More over charge sheet also filed in this case and the C.C.No.

38/2020. Therefore the prosecution is strongly objected to the petitioner/accused

No.3 on bail.

7. Written submissions perused. The petitioner/ accused No.3 was

remanded to judicial custody on 31.12.2019 for an alleged 8(c) r/w 20(b) (ii) (C),

25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act. In this case totally three accused are involved and

26.000kgms of ganja was recovered from accused No.1 and 25.000kgms of

ganja was recovered from accused No.2 and No.3 respectively. In this case the

properties were already produced before this court and remanded in PR No.08/2020

and the same was sent for Chemical analysis. The chemical analysis report is

also received by this court . The report confirms tht the samples are ganja.

The prosecution filed the charge sheet before this court on 19.05.2020 and the

same was taken on file as CC No. 38/2020. Now the case is posted to

31.07.2020 for furnishing copies to the accused.

8. As per Section 37(1)(b) (ii) of NDPS Act, twin conditions are required to

be satisfied before granting bail to the accused. They are

1. Satisfaction of the court that there are reasonable grounds for believing

that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence ; and

4

2. that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

These two conditions are cumulative and not alternative. If the petitioner satisfies

the conditions imposed under Section 37, Petitioner is entitled for bail. Only if the

Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused

is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence

while on bail, bail could be granted.

9. In the Judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in

Union of India v. Ram Samujh and another, (1999) 9 SCC 429

considering the issue held that conditions imposed under Section 37(1)(b) of the

NDPS Act are mandatory and observed as under: -

"8. To check the menace of dangerous drugs flooding the market, Parliament

has provided that the person accused of offences under the NDPS Act should not be

released on bail during trial unless the mandatory conditions provided in Section 37,

namely,

(i) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such

offence; and

(ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail are satisfied. The High

Court has not given any justifiable reason for not abiding by the aforesaid mandate

while ordering the release of the respondent-accused on bail. Instead of attempting to

take a holistic view of the harmful socio-economic consequences and health hazards

which would accompany trafficking illegally in dangerous drugs, the court should

implement the law in the spirit with which Parliament, after due deliberation, has

amended."

10. The petitioner/accused No.1 already filed a bail application Under

Section 439 of Cr.P.C. and the same was dismissed by this court's order in Special

CMP No. 10/2020 on 07.04.2020, and the petitioners/accused No.2 and 3 also filed

5

a bail application Under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. and the same was dismissed by

this court's order in CMP No. 29/2020 on 22.01.2020. Now the petitioner filed this

bail petition Under Section 439 Cr.P.C. In this case the petitioners were arrested

for an alleged offence U/s. 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act. The

total quantity of the property recovered in this case is 51.000kgms viz 26.000kgms

of ganja was recovered from this petitioner/accused No.1 and 25.000kgms of ganja

was recovered from the accused No.2 and 3. From perusal of the case records

including the statement of accused at this stage prima facie material is available to

show that the petitioners/ accused No.1 to 3 were intercepted by the police and

totally 51.000kgms of ganja was recovered.

11. In the Judgment of Honourable Supreme Court of India in

State of Kerala vs Rajesh on 24 January 2020.

Honourable Apex Court clearly held that Section 37 of the NDPS Act commences

with non-obstante clause and the conditions enumerated in Section 37(1)(b) have to

be complied before admitting the accused on bail of the aforesaid offence under the

Act in case of commercial quantity.

"20. The scheme of Section 37 reveals that the exercise ofpower to grant bail is not only subject to the limitations contained underSection 439 of the CrPC, but is also Paras Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh20 ... on 1 July, 2020 Indian Kanoon subject to the limitation placed bySection 37 which commences with non-obstante clause. The operativepart of the said section is in the negative form prescribing theenlargement of bail to any person accused of commission of an offenceunder the Act, unless twin conditions are satisfied. The first condition isthat the prosecution must be given an opportunity to oppose theapplication; and the second, is that the Court must be satisfied that thereare reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence.If either of these two conditions is not satisfied, the ban for granting bailoperates.

21. The expression "reasonable grounds" means somethingmore than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probablecauses for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence.

6

The reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires existence ofsuch facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justifysatisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. In the caseon hand, the High Court seems to have completely overlooked theunderlying object of Section 37 that in addition to the limitationsprovided under the CrPC, or any other law for the time being in force,regulating the grant of bail, its liberal approach in the matter of bailunder the NDPS Act is indeed uncalled for."

12. Considering the above all and also the interest of the society at large, this

court finds that there is no merits on this petition, hence this petition can not be

entitled at the present stage. Considering the fact of the case, this court is of

the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail as

accusation is of commercial quantity and the provisions of Section 37 (1)(b)(ii) of

the NDPS Act are not satisfied and on the basis of principles of law laid down by

the Apex Court, it cannot be held that there are reasonable grounds for believing

that the accused has not committed the said offences and he is not likely to

commit any offence, if released on bail. Since there is no merit in the bail

application. Hence this petition dismissed.

13. Accordingly, this bail petition is dismissed.

This order is dictated by me and computerized by the steno-typist

on this the 16th day of July 2020.

Sd/- T. Malarvalantina,

ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE/ RESIDING OFFICER,

SPECIAL COURT FOR EC ACT CASES,

COIMBATORE.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.V, COIMBATORE

Presence :A.PRABU ,M.L., PGD IPL.,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-I

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.V(FAC)

COIMBATORE.

Thursday, 16th day of July 2020

C.M.P. No. 2156 Of 2020

CR.NO.1376 OF 2020

Abuthahir (Abhu) (46/20)

S/o.Abdul Rahim .. Petitioner/ Accused

/ Vs/

Inspector of Police,

R5 Alandurai PS,

Coimbatore

Cr. No.1376 of 2020 ... Respondent/ Complainant

ORDER

Bail Application Filed U/s. 437 OF Cr.P.C on behalf of the petitioner by Advocate

Thiru.H.Noorul Ameen,B.A., B.L., and this application has been received through E-mail. Police

submitted reply on 16-07-2020. After considering bail application,FIR and submission of counsel

through email this court passed the following order.

2. From the materials available submitted through email it is seen that Accused is charged

for the offences under Sections 120B, 406, 411, 414, 384 IPC & 4 of TNPHW ACT and he is

arrested by the respondent/police and he is remanded to judicial custody on 24.06.2020.

3. Notice was sent through email to police .In the reply submitted by police on 16th

July, police has raised strong objection in releasing the accused on bail stating that if he is

released on bail, he will continue the same kind of offence. Investigation is still pending.

4. The petitioner/accused stated that the petitioner is innocent and he has nothing to do with the

alleged incident. He had just asked for the amount that he had lent to A-1 and A2 from the defacto-

complainant in order to return car not knowing that A1 and A2 had already pledged the car and

obtained money from Sriram Transport Finance Limited. He is a breadwinner of his family. He has

remanded to judicial custody on 24.6.20

5. Materials submitted through email were perused . Considering the facts and circumstances

of this case, nature of the offence, objection and stage of the investigation, this court does not

incline to grant bail to the petitioner.

.


Dictated to the Steno-typist and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me through

Email on this the 16th day of July 2020.

-Sd-

A.PRABU

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.V,

COIMBATORE (FAC)





COIMBATORE.


C.M.P. No. 2157 Of 2020

CR.NO.1405 OF 2020

Abuthahir (Abhu) (46/20)

S/o.Abdul Rahim .. Petitioner/ Accused

/ Vs/


R5 Alandurai PS,

Coimbatore


ORDER


Thiru.H.Noorul Ameen,B.A., B.L., and this application has been received through E-mail. Police




for the offences under Sections 120B, 406, 411, 414 IPC and he is arrested by the

respondent/police and he is remanded to judicial custody on 3.7.20.



released on bail, he will continue the same kind of offence. Investigation is still pending.

4. The petitioner/accused stated that the petitioner is innocent and he has nothing to do with the

alleged incident. He had just asked for the amount that he had lent to A-1 from the defacto-

complainant in order to return car not knowing that A1 had already pledged the car and obtained

money from Sriram Transport Finance Limited. He is a breadwinner of his family. He has remanded

to judicial custody on 03.07.2020




.




-Sd-

A.PRABU


COIMBATORE (FAC)





COIMBATORE.


C.M.P. No.2161 Of 2020

CR.NO.1412 OF 2020

1. Ashok kumar (28/20)

S/o.Balan

2. Sathishkumar (31/20)

S/o.Balan .. Petitioners/ Accused

/ Vs/


D2 Selvapuram (L & O) PS,

Coimbatore


ORDER

Bail Application Filed U/s. 437 OF Cr.P.C on behalf of the petitioners by Advocate

Thiru.S.Rajendran,B.A.,B.L., and this application has been received through E-mail. Police and



2. From the materials available submitted through email, it is seen that Accused are

charged for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) IPC and they are arrested by

the respondent/police and they are remanded to judicial custody on 09.07.2020.

3. Notice was sent through email to police . In the reply submitted by police on 16th

July, police has raised strong objection in releasing the accused on bail. If the accused

released on bail they will tamper the witnesses and he may abscond. They are continue the same

kind of offence. The victim discharged from the hospital.

4. The petitioner/accused stated that they are innocent and they had been falsely implicated in

this case. The conclusion of the proceedings may take reasonable long time and the petitioners have

to languish in jail for no fault of his own. The continuous detention of the petitioners would

adversely reflect on his physical and mental health. Hence it is very essential and necessary to apply

the bail application through online by Corona Virus. They have got permanent residence and they

will not abscond or tamper with the prosecution witnesses, they are enlarged bail by this

Honourable Court. They are ready to abide by any condition imposed by this Hon'ble Court and

they are ready to produce sufficient sureties as directed by the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate No.5,

Coimbatore. They are not filed any Bail petition in the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras.

5. Materials submitted through email were perused. On perusal of reply submitted by

the police, it is seen that petitioners are in judicial custody for the past 7 days. Considering the facts

and circumstance of this case and period of incarceration,considering the fact victim discharged

form the hospital, this court is inclined to grant bail to petitioners, accordingly this petition is

allowed and due to the pandemic spread of covid-19 the petitioners are release on bail with the

following conditions:

1)The petitioners are directed to enlarge on bail on execution of own bond for Rs.10,000/-at present.

2)The petitioners shall produce the sureties within 15 days from the date of resuming regular court

working.

3)The petitioners are directed to sign before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m until further

order.



-Sd-

A.PRABU


COIMBATORE (FAC)





COIMBATORE.


C.M.P. No.2162 Of 2020

CR.NO.1411 OF 2020

1. Nagaraj (21/20)

S/o.Ravi

2. Rakesh Kannan (20/20)

S/o.Subramani

3.Deva (19/20)

S/o.Ranganadhan .. Petitioners/ Accused

/ Vs/



Coimbatore


ORDER


Thiru.M.vanathatchi,B.Com.,L.L.B, and this application has been received through E-mail. Police

and submitted reply on 16-07-2020. After considering bail application,FIR and submission of

counsel through email this court passed the following order.






released on bail they will tamper the witnesses and he may abscond.They are continue the same





adversely reflect on his physical and mental health. Hence it is very essential and necessay to apply


will not abscond or tamper with the prosecution witnesses ,they are enlarged bail by this












working.


order.



-Sd-

A.PRABU


COIMBATORE (FAC)





COIMBATORE.


C.M.P. No.2164 Of 2020

CR.NO.1412 OF 2020

1. Kalimuthu (Pulsar Kali) (39/20)

S/o.Selvaraj

2. Vignesh (Chinna Vikki) (20/20)

S/o.Arivazhagan .. Petitioners/ Accused

/ Vs/



Coimbatore


ORDER


Thiru.K.Sakthivel,B.A.,B.L., and this application has been received through E-mail. Police and








released on bail they will tamper the witnesses and he may abscond. They are continue the same





adversely reflect on his physical and mental health. Hence it is very essential and necessary to apply


will not abscond or tamper with the prosecution witnesses, they are enlarged bail by this












working.


order.



-Sd-

A.PRABU


COIMBATORE (FAC)





COIMBATORE.


C.M.P. No. 2181 Of 2020

CR.NO.708 OF 2020

Raja (22/20)

S/o.Maruthan .. Petitioner/ Accused

/ Vs/


R5 Alandurai PS,

Coimbatore


ORDER


Thiru.V.Suresh Rajendran,B.A., B.L., and this application has been received through E-mail. Police




for the offences under Sections 457, 392 IPC and he is arrested by the respondent/police and

he is remanded to judicial custody on 13.06.2020.



released on bail, he will tamper the witnesses and hamper the investigation. Investigation is still

pending.

4. The petitioner/accused stated that the petitioner/accused working at the neighbourhood agri

land. Already there is a water problems between the defacto complainant and the accused. Due to

that enmity, the defacto complainant preferred the false complaint against the petitioner. The

continuous detention of the petitioner would adversely reflect on his physical and mental health.

Hence it is very essential and necessary to apply the bail application through online by Corono

Virus. The petitioner has not involved in the said alleged offence and he is falsely implicated in the

above and case. He will not abscond and tamper the witnesses. He undertake to abide by

conditions that may be imposed by the Hon'ble Court. The Petitioner/Accused has not filed any

similar bail application before any Court of justice.




.




-Sd-

A.PRABU


COIMBATORE (FAC)

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE / PRESIDING OFFICER,


PRESENT : TMT. T. MALARVALANTINA,M.L.,

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE / PRESIDING OFFICER,SPECIAL COURT FOR ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT CASES, COIMBATORE.

THURSDAY, THE 16th DAY OF JULY 2020.

Spl. C.M.P.No. 139 /2020

Maruthal @ Maragatham,

W/o Dhanapal. ...Petitioners/accused No.1.

Vs.

State Rep by Inspector of Police,

Puliyampatti Police Station,

Crime No. 368 /2020. ... Respondent/ Complainant.

This is a bail application filed on 09.07.2020 u/s 439 and 167(2) of Cr.P.C

by Advocate M.Prsasath on behalf of the petitioner/ accused No.1 and Thiru

S.P. Chandrasekar, Special Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/ Complainant and

on perusing the documents, this court passed the following :-

ORDER

The petitioners/Accused No.1 was in judicial custody from 10.05.2020 for

an offence U/s.8(c) r/w 20(b) (ii) (B) of NDPS Act.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners/Accused No. 1 and two

others were found to be in unlawful possession of 1.010kgms of ganja.

3. In view of the nation vide lock down, for Covid 19 virus pandemic, to

avoid physical contacts and to maintain social distancing courts in TamilNadu

are function through virtual mode. Now the lock down has been extended till

31.07.2020. Hence the petitioner has filed this petition through e-mail to this court

e-mail . Hence the above said bail application filed online was taken on file, and

assigned a Special CMP No. 139/2020.

4. On behalf the petitioner/accused, the learned counsel for the petitioners/

accused No.1 submitted this written bail petition as follows:

The petitioners/accused No 1 and two other accused were arrested and

2

remanded to judicial custody on 10.05.2020 for an alleged offe nce u/s 8(c) r/w

20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS ACt. The accused No.1 was found to be in possession of

1.010kgms og ganja. She is in judicial custody for the past 60days. Further the

petitioners counsel submitted that on the guise of enquiry the accused was taken

by the respondent police and falsely implicated in this case. She has not committed

any offence as alleged by the respondent police. The petitioner/accused's counsel

submitted that no charge sheet not filed even though 60 days are over from the

date of remand of the petitioner/accused No.1 and hence she is entitled for statutory

bail u/s 167(2) of Cr.P.C. She is having permanent residence and she will not

abscond. The petitioner/accused No.1 is ready to produce substanital sureties for

her due appearance. Therefore the learned counsel for the petitioners prays to

release the petitioner/accused No. 1 on bail.

5. Notice issued to the Special Public Prosecutor.

6. The written objection submitted by the Special Public Prosecutor is that

the petitioner/Accused No.1 was charged u/s 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act.

The accused was arrested on 09.05.2020. On 09.05.2020 the above accused was

in unlawful possession of 1.010kgms of ganja near a petti shop, Solananur Road,

Arasani Mokkai, Pulliampatti to BHavanisagar Road along with the other two

accused A2 Rani and Accused 3 Selvaraj. All the three accused were jointly libale

for punishment under NDPS Act. Section 29(1) of NDPS Act is going to be added

at the time of filing of charge sheet. The offence committed by the above said

accused is a crime against the society. Therefore the prosecution is strongly

objected to release the petitioner/accused No. 1 on bail.

7. Written submissions perused. The petitioner/ accused No.1 was remanded

to judicial custody on 10.05.2020 for an alleged offence U/s. 8(c) r/w 20(b) (ii)

(B) of NDPS Act. The accused was found to be in possession of 1.010kgms of

ganja. In this case the properties were already produced before this court and

remanded in PR No.70/2020 and sent for chemical analysis. The chemical

analysis report is awaited. The accused No.1 is in judicial custody for the past 68

3

days. Admittedly charge sheet has not been filed within a time stiuplated u/s 167(2)

Cr.P.C. Further by this time most part of the investigation would have been

completed. The co-accused are already released on bail by this court. Considering

above all, this court of the view that the petitioner/accused No.1 is entitled for

Statutory bail u/s 167(2)(a)(II) of Cr.P.C.

8. Accordingly, this petition is allowed with conditions. The conditions

are as follows:

1. The petitioner/ accused No. 1 is ordered to be released on interim bail on

executing an own bond for Rs. 10,000/-.

2. Further she should appear before this court on 20.08.2020 along with

two sureties for likesum each and out of the two sureties, one surety must be

relative of the petitioner/accused No.1. The sureties should affix their recent

photos in the affidavit.

3. T he petitioner/ accused No. 1 shall appear and sign before the

respondent police station weekly once i.e. on every Thursday at 10.00A.M.

till production of sureties. The petitioners are directed to appear before the

respondent police as and when required for interrogation.

4. The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during

investigation or trial.

5. The petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

6. If the accused / petitioner thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered

Section 229A IPC.

This order is dictated by me and typed by the steno-typist on this

the 16th day of July 2020.

Sd/- T. Malarvalantina,

ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE/ PRESIDING OFFICER,

SPECIAL COURT FOR EC ACT CASES,

COIMBATORE.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, COIMBATORE




C.M.P. No. (urgent ) 364 Of 2020

CR.NO.1564 OF 2020

1)Theran @ Therankumar(21)

S/o.Sakthivel

2)Murugesan(22)

s/o.Murugan

3)Surya @ Jayasurya(21)

S/o.Muruganantham

4)Manikandan(21)

S/o.Murugan Vs .. Petitioners/ Accused


Thudialur p.s, coimbatore

Cr. No. 1564 of 2020 ... Respondent/ Complainant

ORDER


Thiru Muralidharan and this application has been received through E-mail. Police and

prosecution submitted reply on 16.07.2020. After considering bail application, FIR and

submission of counsel through email this court passed the following order.

2. From the materials available submitted through email it is seen that Accused is

charged for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) IPC and he was

arrested by the respondent/police and he was remanded to judicial custody on 04.07.2020.

3. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner is innocent and not

committed any offence as alleged in the FIR, The petitioners/Accused no.1,2,3,5 has been in

judicial custody continously from 04.07.2020 onwards to till now. The petitioners/Accused

no.1,3 they both studying in college. The petitioners/Accused no.2,5 they both working as a

labour in welding workshop. The petitioners/Accused they all not voluntarily commit any

offecnce in the said occurrence place. The alleged story mentioned in the alleged FIR is a cock

and bull story invented by this defacto complainant for the only purpose of this false case.

The petitioners/Accused no.1,2,3,5 was not committed any offecnce as alleged in the FIR. The

petitioners is innocent and they all not committed any offecnce. The petitioners/Accused

no.1,2,3,5 submits that they all remanded to the judicial custody on 04.07.2020 and the

petitioners is in judicial custody. The petitioners humbly submits that they are the only

breadwinner for their family. The petitioners/Accused no.1,2,3,5 they all inside the prison for

past 10 days. The petitioners/Accused filed the first bail application in CMP.No.356/2020 it

was returned by this Hon'ble Court on 10.07.2020. Thus he prayed for release on bail.

4. Notice was sent through email to police .In the reply submitted by police and

prosecution on 16th July, police and prosecution has raised strong objection in releasing the

accused on bail stating that the prosecution submitted that if the petitioner is released on

bail he will tamper the witnesses and hamper the investigation, he may continue to the same

kind of offence, Investigation of this case is still pending. Victim discharge from the hospital.

Hence ,the prosecution strongly oppose to allow this petition and may be dismissed.

5. Material submitted through email were perused. On Perusal of records , considering

the facts and circumstance of this case, and period of incarceration, and also considering the

fact that victim discharged from the hospital, accordingly this petition is allowed and due to

the pandemic spread of covid-19 the petitioner is release on bail with the following conditions:

1)The petitioner is directed to enlarge on bail on execution of own bond for Rs.10,000/-at

present.

2)On release the petitioner is directed to execute a bond for Rs.10,000/- with two sureties with

in 15 days from the date of resuming regular court working.

3)The petitioner is directed to sign before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m until

further order.

Dictated to Steno-typist, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me

through Email on this the 16th day of July 2020.

-Sd-

A.PRABU

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I,COIMBATORE

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT MUNSIF CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

METTUPALAYAM

Present: Thiru M.Ramadhas, M.L., District Munsif Cum

Judicial Magistrate(FAC), Mettupalayam

Thursday 16th day of July 2020 C.M.P.No.730/2020

in Cr.No 84/2020

(On the file of Inspector of police, Sirumugai)

A1. Manikandan(21), S/o Kittan. …..Petitioner/Accused

State through the -vs-Inspector PoliceSirumugai Police StationCoimbatore District. …..Respondent/Complainant

This bail application has been received through email.

ORDER

This petition is filed for bail for the alleged offence u/s 457, 380 of IPC. Since it is

non bailable offence, notice was sent to police and reply was also received.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/accused was alleged to have

committed the offence u/s 457, 380 of IPC .

In the reply, the police has stated that if the petitioner/accused is enlarged on bail,

he will not appear before this court at the time of trial and as such the prosecution has

strongly opposed to release the accused on bail.

The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused has stated in the petition that the

petitioner/accused is no way connected with the offence, hence he may be enlarged on bail.

It is seen from the records that the petitioner/accused was alleged to have

committed the offence u/s. 457, 380 of IPC. He was remanded to Judicial Custody on

04.07.2020.The accused has been inside the Jail for the past 13 days. Considering the period

of incarceration and considering the fact and circumstances of this case, Considering the

COVID-19 pandemic situation, this court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly the accused shall be released on bail on his executing own bond for

Rs.10000/- at present. The petitioner shall also produce two sureties like sum each to the

value of Rs.10000/-, within 15 days from the date of resuming regular Court working. The

petitioner is further directed to sign before the respondent police daily at 10.00A.M until

further orders after relaxation of Lockdown Period.

/Sd/M. Ramadhas, M.L.

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate(FAC), Mettupalayam.


METTUPALAYAM




in Cr.No 327/2020

(On the file of Inspector of police, Sirumugai)

A1. Manikandan(21), S/o Kittan. …..Petitioner/Accused

State through the -vs-Inspector PoliceSirumugai Police StationCoimbatore District. …..Respondent/Complainant

This bail application has been received through email.

ORDER

This petition is filed for bail for the alleged offence u/s 457, 380 of IPC. Since it is

non bailable offence, notice was sent to police and reply was also received.


committed the offence u/s 457, 380 of IPC .







committed the offence u/s. 457, 380 of IPC. He was remanded to Judicial Custody on

04.07.2020. The property in this case is also recovered.The accused has been inside the Jail

for the past 13 days. Considering the period of incarceration and considering the fact and

circumstances of this case, Considering the COVID-19 pandemic situation, this court is

inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.









METTUPALAYAM




in Cr.No 859/2020

(On the file of Inspector of police, Mettupalayam)

Selvaraj(58),S/o Dasan. …..Petitioner/Accused

State through the -vs-Inspector PoliceMettupalayam Police StationCoimbatore District. …..Respondent/Complainant

This bail application has been received through email. ORDER

This petition is filed for bail for the alleged offence u/s 294(b),324,506(2) of IPC.

Since it is non bailable offence, notice was sent to police and reply was also received.


committed the offence u/s 294(b),324,506(2) of IPC .







committed the offence u/s. 294(b),324,506(2) of IPC. He was remanded to Judicial

Custody on 05.06.2020. The accused has been inside the Jail for the past 42 days. The

injured has been discharged from hospital. Considering the period of incarceration and

considering the fact and circumstances of this case, Considering the COVID-19 pandemic

situation, this court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.








IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I ,

COIMBATOREPresence :A.PRABU ,M.L., PGD IPL.,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE -I JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE -V (FAC)


C.M.P. No. 2163 Of 2020 CR.NO.956 OF 2019

1.Abu Hyder Ali (52/20)S/o.Haji Ali

2.Megadi Asan (46/20)S/o.Ravuth Ali.

3. Sathick Ali (35/20)S/o.Rabeek

4.Hasan Ali (29/20)S/o.Ajjam Ali ….. Petitioners/ Accused person

VsInspector of Police,

B1 Bazaar PS ,Coimbatore.Cr. No.956 of 2019 ... Respondent/ Complainant

ORDER

Bail Application Filed U/s. 167(2) OF Cr.P.C on behalf of the petitioner

by Advocate Thiru.D.Jaisankar, and this application has been received throughEmail on 13.07.2020 .

2. From the materials available submitted through email it is seen that Accused

are charged for the offences under sections 170, 406, 420 of IPC and they werearrested by the respondent/police and they were remanded to judicial custody

on 07.02.2020.

3. The petitioner submits that the case of the prosecution is that on 18.12.2019this petitioner along with the co accused waylaid the defacto complainant and

introduced their self as a police and cheated the defacto complainant and takenthe 655 grams of Gold and ran away from the place . Hence its FIR. They were

falsely implicated in this case by the respondent police and they are all no wayconnected with the said offence and further submits that they are bread winner

of his family. They are all respectable person in the society and they are all lawabiding citizen and they will not flee from the hands of justice . They are ready

to co-operate with the investigation and they will not tamper the witness or in

any manner interfere with or create any obstacle to the investigation. They are

ready to offer any surety and they will abide by any strigent conditions tht thisHon'ble Court may imposed in the circumstances of this case.

4. The petition and case materials are carefully perused and considered. On

perusal of case records, this court found that the petitioners were arrested andremanded to judicial custody on 07.02.2020. So far the respondent police has

not chosen to file charge sheet against the accused. Considering the period ofcustody as well as the facts relates to non-filing of charge sheet, this court

inclined to grant bail u/s 167(2) of crpc ,due to the pandemic spread of covid-19 the petitioners are release on bail with the following conditions:

1)The petitioners is directed to enlarge on bail on execution of own bond forRs.10,000/- at present.

2) The petitioners shall produce the sureties within 15 days from the date ofresuming regular court working.

3)The petitioners is directed to sign before the respondent police daily at 10.00a.m and 5.00 P.m until further order.

4)The petitioners shall not hamper or tamper any witnesses in any manner.

Dictated to the Steno-typist and typed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me through Email on this the 16th day of July 2020.

-Sd-A.PRABU

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.V(FAC) COIMBATORE

Documents

Thiru R. SAKTHIVEL, BA, BL, PRINCIPAL DIST - District Courts