B.SENTHIL KUMAR v. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOODALUR PUDUR 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, anticipatory bail petition stands dismissed
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 438
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 294(B), 323, 506(ii)
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail inthe event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned JudicialMagistrate No.IV, Madurai, and executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum…
- Para 66. 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, anticipatory bail petition stands dismissed. sd/- 20/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High…
Judgment
Cause title
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT( Criminal Jurisdiction )Tuesday, the Twentieth day of September Two Thousand ElevenPRESENTTHE HON`BLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALACRL OP(MD) No.12005 of 2011B.SENTHIL KUMAR ... PETITIONER
/SOLE ACCUSED VsTHE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOODALUR PUDUR POLICE STATION,MADURAI.( CRIME NO.NOT KNOWN OF 2011 ) ... RESPONDENT
/COMPLAINANTFor Petitioner : M/S. S.DHAYALAN AdvocateFor Respondent : 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/sole accused apprehend arrest at the hands of therespondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(B), 323 and 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.399 of 2011 on the file of therespondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that thepetitioner is the sole accused and he is an innocent person and he hasbeen falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that thealleged occurrence has been taken place in respect of money transactionand investigation is considerably over and the injured has already beendischarged from the hospital and the petitioner apprehend for arrest andhe prays for enlargement on anticipatory bail.
Refuting the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutorsubmitted that because of money transaction, the alleged occurrence tookplace and the petitioner refused to repay the money and abused thedefacto complainant with criminal intimidation and the case has beenregistered. He fairly conceded that the injured has been discharged fromthe hospital and and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application.
Considering the rival submissions made by both sides, the allegedoccurrence has been taken place on 4.9.2011 due to money transaction andthe injured has already been discharged from the hospital and even thoughthe petitioner was not arrested neither he interfered with theinvestigation nor he absconded from the jurisdiction, I am inclined togrant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.
Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail inthe event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned JudicialMagistrate No.IV, Madurai, and executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to thesatisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further conditionthat the petitioner shall appear before the concerned court daily at10.30 a.m. until further orders. The petitioner shall comply with thecondition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
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, anticipatory bail petition stands dismissed. sd/- 20/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.IV,MADURAI2. THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,MADURAI3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICEKOODALUR PUDUR POLICE STATIONMADURAI.4. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI+1. CC to M/S. S.DHAYALAN Advocate SR.No.32487GH : 22.09.2011 : 2P/6C ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.12005 of 2011 Date :20/09/2011
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, anticipatory bail petition stands dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 294(B), 323, 506(ii).
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.