RAJA MOHAMED @ KOTTAI RAJA v. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THALAIYUTHU 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
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 438
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 341, 387
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Considering the nature of allegation made in the complaint that the petitioner has demanded a sum of Rs.50/- from the de-factocomplainant, who is non other than his brother, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. Accordingly the…
- 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/- 27/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of…
Judgment
Cause title
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT( Criminal Jurisdiction )Tuesday, the Twenty Seventh day of September Two Thousand ElevenPRESENTThe Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.M.SUNDRESHCRL OP(MD) No.12775 of 2011RAJA MOHAMED @ KOTTAI RAJA ... PETITIONER
/ACCUSED No.2 VsTHE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THALAIYUTHU POLICE STATION,TIRUNELVELI DTCR NO. 379/2011 ... RESPONDENT
/COMPLAINANTFor Petitioner : M/S. SEENI SULTHAN 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 is arrayed as A2 and he apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 341 and 387 IPC in Crime No.379 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail.
The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner has demanded asum of Rs.50/- from the defacto complainant who is none other than his brother.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the State.
Considering the nature of allegation made in the complaint that the petitioner has demanded a sum of Rs.50/- from the de-factocomplainant, who is non other than his brother, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. Accordingly the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial MagistrateNO.III, Tirunelveli and on executing a personal 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 respondent police as and when required for interrogation. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.Cscrupulously. 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 the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed. sd/- 27/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRETE NO.IIITIRUNELVELI2. THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,TIRUNELVELI3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICETHALAIYUTHU POLICE STATION,TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT4. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAIGH : 30.09.2011 : 2P/5C ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.12775 of 2011 Date :27/09/2011
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 the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 341, 387.
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.