Madras High Court
CRL OP(MD)/23506/2013 of V.DEVARAJ 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.23506 of 2013 1 V.DEVARAJ 2 ANBU 3 M.MOHAN ..PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3 Vs. STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE MELUR
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.23506 of 2013
1 V.DEVARAJ
2 ANBU
3 M.MOHAN
..PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3
Vs.
STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE MELUR POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT.(CR.NO.732 OF 2013)..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
For Petitioner : M/S.V.A.DHANA ARAVINDHA BALAJI 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 the respondentpolice for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections294(b), 323 and 506(ii) IPC r/w Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition ofHarassment of Women Act in crime No.732 of 2013 and seek anticipatorybail.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit thatthe petitioners have nothing to do with the alleged commission of offenceand they have been falsely implicated in this case.
3. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that thealleged occurrence had taken place on 18.12.2013 and the case has beenregistered on 23.12.2013. He would further submit that there was a wordyquarrel arose between the petitioners and the de-facto complainant withneighbours and no one sustained injury in the alleged occurrence and thisis a counter case to the case in Crime No.731 of 2013.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court isinclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly,the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrestor on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur,Madurai and on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupeesten 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 respondent police daily at10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks. The petitioners shall comply withthe condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously.
5. 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
/ TRUE COPY /https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)
TO
1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MELUR, MADURAI DISTRICT.
2 -DO-THRO'HE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI.
3 THE ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT,MADURAI.
4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MELUR POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT.
+1. CC to M/S.V.A.DHANA ARAVINDHA BALAJI Advocate SR.No.10
ORDER IN
CRL OP(MD) No.23506 of 2013
Date :30/12/2013
PBK 02/01/2014 2P/6C