BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Thirtieth day of June Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.S.RAMANATHAN CRL OP(MD) No.7977 of 2011 LAKSHMANAN ..PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED Vs. STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALANGUDY POLICE STATION, CR NO. 179/2011, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT. ..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.N.RAVISHANKAR VALLATHARASU Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.RAMAR, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 07.04.2011 by the respondent police in Crime No. 179 of 2011 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(ii) of IPC initially and subsequently altered into Section 302 of IPC. He has come forward with this Petition seeking bail. 2. Heard Mr.N.Ravishankar Vallatharasu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.Ramar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that initially a case was registered under Sections 294(b), 323, 506 (ii) of IPC and after the death of the deceased on 08.04.2011, the Section was altered into 302 of IPC. He further submitted that the deceased was his paternal uncle and the case of the prosecution was that the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the deceased and the deceased was living with the petitioner and the deceased demanded the said amount and enraged by that, the petitioner caused the death of the deceased. According to the petitioner due of dispute regarding partition, there was some altercation and in that, the deceased got injury and subsequently, he succumbed to the injury and he died. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner borrowed the amount from the deceased, who was also living https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ with the petitioner and when the deceased demanded the said amount, this occurrence had taken place. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the petitioner and the deceased are relatives and the deceased was living with the petitioner and there was a money transaction and in that transaction, the petitioner alleged to have attacked the deceased with wooden lock and subsequently, the deceased died and the petitioner is in custody for the past 80 days, this Court is constrained to grant the relief of bail to the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alangudy, and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks. sd/- 30/06/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ALANGUDY. 2 -Do-Thro' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE PUDUKKOTTAI. 3 THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, DISTRICT PRISON, PUDUKKOTTAI. 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. 5 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALANGUDY POLICE STATION, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT. +1. CC to M/S.N.RAVISHANKAR VALLATHARASU Advocate SR.No.20888 akm/30.06.11 /2p-7c/ ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.7977 of 2011 Date :30/06/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/