Madras High Court
CRL OP(MD)/23522/2013 of MUHIBUR RAHMAN Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE on 30 December 2013
BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Thirtieth day of December Two Thousand Thirteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice P.N.PRAKASH CRL OP(MD) No.23522 of 2013 1 MUHIBUR RAHMAN 2 BABU ..PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2 Vs. STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
( Criminal Jurisdiction )
Monday, the Thirtieth day of December Two Thousand ThirteenPRESENTThe Hon`ble Mr Justice P.N.PRAKASHCRL OP(MD) No.23522 of 2013
1 MUHIBUR RAHMAN
2 BABU
..PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2
Vs.
STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VICKRAMASINGAPURAM POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVLEI DISTRICTCR. NO. 257/2013...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
For Petitioner : M/S.R.ANAND Advocate
For Respondent : Mr.A.P.BALASUBRAMANI, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-The petitioners apprehending arrest at the hands of therespondent police for the alleged commission of offences under Sections294(b), 323 and 506(i) of IPC., in Crime No.257 of 2013, seekanticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that there was a wordy quarrelbetween the petitioners and the defacto complainant and the petitionersused unparliamentary words.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submitthat the petitioners are nothing todo with the alleged commission ofoffences and they have been falsely implicated in this case.
4. The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) would submit that thepetitioners have illegal intimacy with the defacto complainant's wife anddue to which there was a wordy quarrel between them and the petitionersabused the defacto complainant with unparliamentary words and no onesustained injuries.
5. This Court, taking into consideration of the above said facts andcircumstances, is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatorybail. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bailin the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned JudicialMagistrate, Ambasamudram, and on executing a bond for a sum ofRs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each for a likesum to the satisfaction of thelearned Magistrate concerned and onfurther condition that the petitioners shall appear before the respondentdaily at 11.00 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as andwhen required. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulatedunder Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously.
6. The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Magistratewithin a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy madeready failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed. sd/- 30/12/2013
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ / TRUE COPY /
Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)
TO
1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, AMBASAMUDRAM, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.
2 -do-thro'THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TIRUNELVELI.
3 THE ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT,MADURAI.
4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VICKRAMASINGAPURAM POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVLEI DISTRICT.TIRUNELVLEI DISTRICT.
+1. CC to M/S.R.ANAND Advocate SR.No.64408
ORDER IN
CRL OP(MD) No.23522 of 2013
Date :30/12/2013
PBK 31/12/2013 2P/6C