1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT( Criminal Jurisdiction )Monday v. STATE
Case at a glance
Outcome
Bail refused
iv)The petitioners 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. 294(b), 323, 341, 355, 506(i)
Key paragraphs
- Para 2525. Considering the submissions made by both sides, I could see that in this case, investigation is pending and there is tension prevailing in the concerned village. Under the said circumstances, the petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail with the following stringent conditions:i)Accordingly, the petitioners…
Judgment
Cause title
1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT( Criminal Jurisdiction )Monday, the Twelfth day of December Two Thousand ElevenPRESENTThe Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAHCRL OP(MD) No.16017 of 20111.D.JOHN KENNEDY 2.PRABHU 3.SEKAR 4.RAVI ... PETITIONERS
/ACCUSED VsSTATE: REP.BY HE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KODAIKANAL POLICE STATION,DINDIGUL DISTRICT.(CR.NO.658/2011) ... RESPONDENT
/COMPLAINANTFor Petitioner : MR.D.JOHN KENNEDY, Party in personFor Respondent : MR. K.S.DURAI PANDIAN, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.
ORDER :
The Court Made the following order :-The petitioners/Accused apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 323,355 and 506(i) of IPC, in Crime Numbr 658 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.
Heard the petitioners, who are appearing party-in-person and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the State.
According to the submission of the petitioners, they have been falsely implicated in this case and there was no injury caused on any one.
The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit in his argument that no person has been injured in this incident. His further contention is that tension prevails in the village, where the occurrence has taken place. He would request this Court that if for any reason, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, stringent conditions may be imposed to avoid further commotion in the village. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Operative part
Considering the submissions made by both sides, I could see that in this case, investigation is pending and there is tension prevailing in the concerned village. Under the said circumstances, the petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail with the following stringent conditions:i)Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the learnedJudicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal and on each 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 Judicial Magistrate concerned and on further condition.ii)that the petitioners shall stay at Dindigul and appear before the Dindigul North Police Station daily in the morning i.e at 10.30 a.m until further orders. Iii)The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C scrupulously.iv)The petitioners 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/- 12/12/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)TO1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KODAIKANAL2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL3 THE OFFICER INCHARGE, DINDIGUL NORTH POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KODAIKANAL POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT5 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.+1. CC to M/S. P.T.RAMESH RAJA Advocate SR.No.43278 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.16017 of 2011 Date :12/12/2011TR : 12.12.2011: 2p/7c
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: iv)The petitioners 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. 294(b), 323, 341, 355, 506(i).
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.