Allowed

Mrs.C.Vasanthi v. the Forest Range Officer

Madras HC2 Aug 2013CRL OP(MD)/11576/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai bench of Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to an accused person in a Forest Case inventory involving the Wild Life (Protection) Act. The court accepted arguments that the incriminating confession was falsified and noted the petitioner was not arrested or absconding.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail by executing a bond for Rs.10,000 with two sureties, to appear daily before the Judicial Magistrate until further orders.

Mrs.C.Vasanthi Vs the Forest Range Officer — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Second day of August Two Thousand Thirteen

¶2

PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.11576 of 2013 MRS.C.VASANTHI ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.3

¶3

Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER FOREST RANGE OFFICE, KALAKKADU MUNDANTHURAI RANGE, TIRUNELVELI DIST FOREST CASE NO.3 OF 2013 ... RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.R.M.MAKESH KUMARAVEL Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.P.BALASUBRAMANI, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶4

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

¶5

Heard both sides.

¶6

The petitioner/accused No.3 apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 9 and 29 punishable under Section 51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 in Forest Case No.3 of 2013 and hence, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶7

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and she is the owner of the landed property and she is nothing to do with the commission of offence and on the basis of confession given by one Selvaraj, she has been implicated in this case and in that confession statement, he has stated that the vehicle is belonging to the petitioner, but on instruction, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) has produced the vehicle detail, which shows the same is belonging to one Abu Salmaan Auto parts, 20-Venkatachala Naicken Street, Pudupet, Chennai and this falsify to confession given by Selvaraj and she is only the owner of the landed property near forest area and hence, he prays for enlargement on anticipatory bail.

¶8

Resisting the same, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that investigation is going on and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application.

¶9

Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and also considering the fact that on the basis of confession given by one Selvaraj, the petitioner has been implicated in this case and in that confession statement, he has stated that the vehicle is belonging to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the petitioner, but on instruction, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) has produced the vehicle detail, which shows the same is belonging to one Abu Salmaan Auto parts, 20 Venkatachala Naicken

¶10

Street, Pudupet, Chennai and this falsify to confession given by Selvaraj and she is only the owner of the landed property near forest area and even though the petitioner was not arrested, neither she interfered with the investigation nor absconded from the jurisdiction, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, with certain conditions.

¶11

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail

¶12

in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai and on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioner shall report before the concerned Court daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. The petitioner shall comply with the conditions stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C., scrupulously.

¶13

The petitioner 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. sd/02/08/2013 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO

¶14

1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II,MADURAI.

¶15

2.-DO-THRO'THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,MADURAI.

¶16

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

¶17

4.THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER FOREST RANGE OFFICE, KALAKKADU MUNDANTHURAI RANGE, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. +1. CC to M/S.R.M.MAKESH KUMARAVEL Advocate SR.No.39184

¶18

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.11576 of 2013 Date :02/08/2013 RG.01.08.2013 2P/6C

¶19

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

Mrs.C.Vasanthi v. the Forest Range Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.C.Vasanthi v. the Forest Range Officer

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

Shajitha Begam Vs the Director General of Police

P.Selvakumaran Vs the Superintendent of Police

Keerthana Vs the Inspector of Police

Madhu Vs the Inspector of Police

I .Sridhar Meanon @ Vs the Inspector of Police

Kumar @ Amblet Kumar Vs the Sub Inspector of Police