Allowed

A. Senthil v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC9 Apr 2011CRL OP(MD)/4311/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to three petitioners accused of offences including rash driving, assault, and narcotics possession under Sections 294(B), 323, 324, 379(NP) IPC and 3(1) TNPDL Act. The court imposed specific conditions including executing a bond, reporting to police, and staying in Dindigul.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted with conditions to execute bond, report to police daily, and stay at Dindigul for two weeks.

A. Senthil Vs the Inspector of Police — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶2

Saturday, the Ninth day of April Two Thousand Eleven

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.4311 of 2011

¶6

1 A. SENTHIL

¶7

2 U. RAJA 3 G. MANIKANDAN ..PETITIONERS/RANK NOT KNOWN

¶8

Vs.

¶9

STATE REP.BY

¶10

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE S.S.COLONY POLICE STATION, MADURAI.

¶11

IN CRIME NO.631/2011 ..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶12

For Petitioners : M/S. V.BALAJI Advocate For Respondent : MR.L.MURUGAN,

¶13

Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶14

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶15

The petitioners are arrayed as accused and apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 294(B), 323, 324, 379(NP) I.P.C. and 3(1) of TNPDL Act in Crime No.631 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶16

2.The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner was driving a two wheeler and the auto driven by the de-facto complainant in a rash and negligent manner dashed against him and consequently, the first petitioner/A1 sustained injury and the public who gathered there, found that the auto driver was in a drunken mood and attacked the de-facto complainant, in which he sustained injury.

¶17

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that in view of the rash and negligent driving of the auto, the public gathered and attacked the de-facto complainant. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are nothing to do with the alleged commission of offence and hence, he prays for anticipatory bail. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the injured was admitted in Government Rajaji Hospital and he is taking treatment.

¶19

5.This Court taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai and each of them shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.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 petitioners shall stay at Dindigul and report before the Dindigul Town Police Station daily at 11.00 a.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation. The petitioners shall comply with the conditions stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously.

¶20

6.The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed.

¶21

sd/09/04/2011 / TRUE COPY /

¶22

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO

¶23

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.V, MADURAI.

¶24

2 -Do-Thro' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE MADURAI.

¶25

3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶26

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, S.S.COLONY POLICE STATION, MADURAI.

¶27

5 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DINDIGUL TOWN POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL.

¶28

+1. CC to M/S. V.BALAJI Advocate SR.No.13221

¶29

akm/11.04.11 /2p-7c/ ORDER https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ IN CRL OP(MD) No.4311 of 2011 Date :09/04/2011

A. Senthil v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. Senthil v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Viji Kumar Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Mayandi Vs the Inspector of Police

Herald Davidson Vs the District Superintendent of

Saravanan @ Veeran Vs the Inspector of Police

Rajangam Vs Sub Inspector of Police

S.Rajamahalingam Vs Inspector of Police