Disposed

Arumugam v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC8 Jan 2013CRL OP(MD)/130/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought anticipatory bail for alleged offences under IPC. The court observed a pending non-bailable warrant due to the petitioner's failure to appear. The order directed the petitioner to appear before the trial court within 10 days to apply for recall of the warrant for a merit hearing. No bail was granted.

What did the court decide?

Directing the petitioner to appear before the trial court within 10 days to apply for recall of the non-bailable warrant.

Arumugam Vs the Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Eighth day of January Two Thousand Thirteen PRESENT

¶2

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice C.T.SELVAM CRL OP(MD) No.130 of 2013

¶3

ARUMUGAM : PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3

¶4

¶5

THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PALAYANUR POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI DT, (CRIME NO.152/2005) : RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶6

For Petitioner : M/S. S.KANAGARAJAN Advocate For Respondent : M/s. P.JOTHI, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

¶7

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

¶8

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶9

The petitioner apprehends arrest for alleged offences under Sections 147, 341, 323 and 506(ii) IPC in C.C.No.316 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Manamadurai, prays for the grant of anticipatory bail.

¶10

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner apprehends arrest on the ground of issuance of Non-Bailable Warrant. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that due to illhealth the petitioner could not appear on 22.08.2012 and on instructions, submits that the petitioner is prepared to partake in the proceedings without fail on future hearings.

¶11

3.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that non-bailable warrant is pending against the petitioner as the petitioner has not appeared before the trial Court on the date of hearing.

¶12

4.This Court has perused the materials available on record. In such circumstances, the petitioner is directed to appear before the trial Court within 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by filing an application under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C to re-call the warrant and if so moved, the learned Magistrate is directed to consider the same on merits on the same day.

Sd/-

08/01/2013

/ TRUE COPY /

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

¶17

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)

¶18

¶19

THE LEARNED JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MANAMADURAI.

¶20

-DO- THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT.

¶21

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALAYANUR POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI DT,

¶22

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

¶23

+1. CC to M/S. S.KANAGARAJAN Advocate SR.No.1244/13.

¶24

PKS/11.01.2013/2P/6C

¶25

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.130 of 2013 Date :08/01/2013

¶26

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

Arumugam v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arumugam 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

K. Kannan Vs the Inspector of Police

Tmt.N.Rajasulochana, Vs the Inspector of Police

S. Xavier Vs the Sub-Inspector of Police

P. Senthilkumar Vs the Inspector of Police

M.Pandi, Vs the Inspector of Police

Stephen Vs the Inspector of Police