S.MURUGAN v. STATE THROUGHTHE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CSCID POLICE STATION
Case at a glance
Outcome
Bail refused
The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate withina period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready,failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate withina period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed. sd/- 05/08/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of…
Judgment
Cause title
1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT( Criminal Jurisdiction )Friday, the Fifth day of August Two Thousand ElevenPRESENTThe Hon`ble Ms. Justice R.MALACRL OP(MD) No.10067 of 2011S.MURUGAN... PETITIONER
/ ACCUSED - 1 VsSTATE THROUGHTHE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CSCID POLICE STATION,MADURAI DISTRICT.(CRIME NO.337 OF 2011
)... RESPONDENT
/ COMPLAINANTFor Petitioner : M/S. A.T.VIJAY AdvocateFor Respondent : MR.A.RAMAR, Additional Public Prosecutor ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.
ORDER :
The Court Made the following order :-The petitioner/Accused No.1 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Section 6(4)of TNSC (RDCS) Order r/w 7(1)(a)(ii) EC Act, 1955 in Crime No.337 of 2011on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is only the owner of the vehicle and the petitioner has not committed any offence and he apprehended for arrest and hence, he come forward with this application and prays for enlargement on anticipatory bail.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl. Side) would submit that the the petitioner has possessed 60 small bags of PDS rice worth about Rs.15,000/- and investigation is going on and he prays for dismissal of this application.
Considering the rival submissions made by both sides, the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner has possessed 60 small bags of PDSrice worth about Rs.15,000/-. Considering the same,I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner on condition that the petitionershall deposit a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the credit of Crime No.337 of 2011on the file of the Judicial Magistrate NO.III, Madurai, and on receipt of the same, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial MagistrateNo.III, Madurai and each of them executing a bond for a sum ofRs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only)with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioner shall report before the Court https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2concerned daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C.Scrupulously.
Operative part
The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate withina period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed. sd/- 05/08/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.IIIMADURAI.2. THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATEMADURAI.3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICECSCID POLICE STATION,MADURAI DISTRICT.4. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTORMADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.+1. CC to M/S. A.T.VIJAY Advocate SR.No.26304 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.10067 of 2011 Date :05/08/2011RJ/8.8.112p/6c
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate withina period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready,failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.