Dismissed

N.Mohideen Abdul Khadar v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC10 Sept 2013CRL OP(MD)/11045/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Reviewer rejected a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioner, an accused individual, opposed arrest under IPC sections 420, 406, 409, and 381. The court dismissed the petition, noting the serious nature of the charges involving alleged collusion in gold theft.

What did the court decide?

Application CRL OP(MD) No.11045 of 2013 was dismissed; anticipatory bail application rejected.

N.Mohideen Abdul Khadar Vs the Inspector of Police — Corruption | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

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

¶2

Tuesday, the Tenth day of September Two Thousand Thirteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice C.T.SELVAM

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.11045 of 2013

¶6

N.MOHIDEEN ABDUL KHADAR ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED No.2

¶7

THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH POLICE STATION, TRICHY, TRICHY DISTRICT, CRIME NO. 6 OF 2013. ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT

¶8

For Petitioner : M/S.N.ANANDAKUMAR Advocate

¶9

For Respondent : Mrs.S.Prabha Government Advocate Crl.Side

¶10

For Intervenor : M/S.R.Meenakshi Sundaram Advocate

¶11

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.

¶12

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶13

The petitioner apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409 and 381 of I.P.C in Cr.No.6 of 2013 on the file of the respondent police.

¶14

The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant /Area Manager of India Infoline finance Limited gave a complaint against the petitioner and two others alleging that the petitioner being the Customer Care Executive colluded with the Branch Manager and both of them had stolen 2,298.400 grams of gold, which were pledged in their bank and subsequently, with the help of the third accused, they pledged the said jewels in several other banks.

¶15

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is no way connected with the crime. The petitioner is only a Customer Care Executive. Though the petitioner is a second condition of locker key, whenever, the key is demanded by the Manager, he is duty bound to obey the order of the Superior Manager. He also informed the malpractices to the higher officials. He further submits that 1st and 3rd accused were already arrested.

¶16

4.Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) on the submissions https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the intervenor.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶18

6.Hence, this anticipatory bail petition is dismissed.

¶19

sd/-

¶20

10/09/2013

¶21

/ TRUE COPY /

¶22

Sub-Assistant Registrar TO

¶23

1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ,DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH POLICE STATION, TRICHY, TRICHY DISTRICT,

¶24

2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI

¶25

+1. CC to M/S. R.Meenakshi Sundaram Advocate SR.No. 45138. Ts/16.09.2013/2p-4c

¶26

ORDER

¶27

¶28

CRL OP(MD) No.11045 of 2013

¶29

Date :10/09/2013

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

N.Mohideen Abdul Khadar v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Mohideen Abdul Khadar 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

Ramalingam Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Mariyammal Vs the Inspector of Police

Saravana Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police

R. Gobinath Vs the Sub-Inspector of Police

Maniyati @ Chelladurai Vs the Inspector of Police

Samsudeen Vs the Inspector of Police