Allowed

Makesh v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC20 Aug 2013CRL OP(MD)/12047/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition under Section 438 CrPC sought anticipatory bail for the accused apprehending arrest for unlawful possession of a motor pumpset. The court, while noting the recovery of the object on the confessional statement of A1, granted bail subject to conditions. The petitioner was ordered to execute a bond within 15 days, failing which the petition would be dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be released on bail in event of arrest by executing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties for like sum and appearing daily in court or before the Magistrate within 15 days of mak

Makesh Vs the Inspector of Police — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

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

¶2

Tuesday, the Twentieth day of August Two Thousand Thirteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.12047 of 2013

¶6

MAKESH ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED (RANK NOT KNOWN) Vs STATE REP. BY ITS THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOLLANCODE POLICE STATION, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT, CRIME NO. 122 OF 2013. ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT

¶7

For Petitioner : M/S.S.PALANIVELAYUTHAM Advocate For Respondent : M/S.A.P.BALASUBRAMANI Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶8

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

¶9

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶10

The petitioner is arrayed as accused and he apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Section 379 of I.P.C., in Crime No.122 of 2013 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶11

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the petitioner was arrested by the Nithiravilai Police Station in Crime Nos.81, 82 and 83 of 2013. He would further submit that it is the case of the prosecution that on the basis of the confession given by A1, the material object has been recovered. He would further submit that the petitioner was arrested in Crime No.83 of 2013 and enlarged on bail and apprehending arrest, they have come forward with this petition.

¶12

3.Resisting the same, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that on the basis of the confession given by A1, material object has been seized. He would further submit that the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody and he was enlarged on bail in other cases. He would further submit that even though PT warrant was issued, the petitioner was not produced before the Court concerned till date. He would further submit that investigation is going and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application.

¶13

4.Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ perusal of case diary it shows that the alleged occurrence has been

¶14

taken place on 29.04.2013 and the complaint has been given on the same day in which the name of the petitioner has not been mentioned but missing on 29.04.2013 one motor pumpset and A1 viz., Prabhu was arrested and on his confession only, the petitioner was roped in to the case and admittedly the material object has been recovered and as per report of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District, PT warrant was issued on 14.05.2013 but he was not produced before the Court till date and the petitioner was enlarged on bail in three cases in Crime Nos.80, 81, and 82 of 2013 and the investigation is considerably over and interrogation is already over, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶15

5.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District and on executing 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 petitioner shall appear before the Court concerned daily at 10.30 a.m until further orders. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously.

¶16

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.

¶17

sd/20/08/2013

¶18

/ TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II KUZHITHURAI, KANYAKUMARI DIST 2 -DO-THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE KANYAKUMARI AT NAGERCOIL

¶19

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

¶20

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

¶21

KOLLANCODE POLICE STATION, KANYAKUMARI DIST

¶22

+1. CC to M/S.S.PALANIVELAYUTHAM Advocate SR.No.41348 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.12047 of 2013 Date :20/08/2013 SMA/26/08/2013/6C/2P

¶23

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

Makesh v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Makesh 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

Jothi Pandi Vs the Inspector of Police

Abdul Razack Vs the Inspector of Police

Kavitha Vs the Inspector of Police

Shanmugasamy Vs the Inspector of Police

Thulasiraman Vs the Inspector of Police

Vairavaselvam Vs the Inspector of Police