Dismissed

P.Palanichamy v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC18 Jun 2013CRL OP(MD)/5671/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismissed multiple anticipatory bail petitions filed by accused persons apprehending arrest for various offences including IPC and mining violations. The court found no registered petiitions or cases against them at the relevant police stations but advised the investigating authority to follow Cr.P.C. Rule 41(A) before arrest.

What did the court decide?

Petitions for anticipatory bail dismissed; investigation to follow Rule 41(A) Cr.P.C. before arrest.

P.Palanichamy Vs the Inspector of Police — Property and Title | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

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

¶2

Tuesday, the Eighteenth day of June Two Thousand Thirteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA

¶5

CRL OP(MD) Nos.5671 to 5676 of 2013

¶6

1 P.PALANICHAMY

¶7

2 P.SELVI 3 P.SENTHIL KUMAR 4 P.SURESH KUMAR

5 S.CHANDRALEKHA

6 M.SIVARANJANI

7 K.MURUGESAN

8 K.DEIVENDRAN 9 R.ARUMUGAM 10 R.SHANMUGANATHAN ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN IN ALL THE PETITIONS

¶12

¶13

STATE REP BY

¶14

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE MELAVALAVU POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT (CRIME NO. NOT KNWON OF 2013) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT IN CRL.OP(MD)NO/5671/2013

¶15

STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VIKIRAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT (CRIME NO. NOT KNWON OF 2013) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT IN CRL.OP(MD)NO/5672/2013

¶16

STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, MADURAI DISTRICT (CRIME NO. NOT KNWON OF 2013) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT IN CRL.OP(MD)NO/5673/2013

¶17

STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KEEZHAVALAVU POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT (CRIME NO. NOT KNWON OF 2013) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT IN

¶18

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

¶19

CRL.OP(MD)NO/5674/2013

¶20

STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE MELUR POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT (CRIME NO. NOT KNWON OF 2013) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT IN CRL.OP(MD)NO/5675/2013

¶21

STATE REP BY

¶22

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE OTHAKKADAI POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT (CRIME NO. NOT KNWON OF 2013) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT IN CRL.OP(MD)NO/5676/2013

¶23

For Petitioner : M/S. T.K.S.GANDHI Advocate in all the Petitions

¶24

For Respondent : M/S.S.SHANMUGAVELAYUTHAM,

¶25

ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ASSISTED BY M/S.A.P.BALASUBRAMANI, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) IN ALL THE PETITIONS

¶26

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

¶27

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶28

The petitioners/Accused apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 447, 430, 379, 109, 120(b), 406, 409, 417, 420 of I.P.C, 4 (1) 4(2)(A), 4(3) and 21(b)(5), 21(6) of MMDR Act, 1957 and 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act and Section 4 of Explosives Act and Section 5 of Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act, in unknown Crime number of 2013 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.

¶29

The learned Senior counsel Mr.N.R.Elango would submit that the petitioners are innocent and in view of the report submitted, the first petitioner is having 55 licences for quarrying and in August 2012, the District Collector of Madurai, submitted a report and in view of that, a review committee has been formed and a case has been registered against the first respondent, who is the Managing Director of the quarry and others are wife, children, Manager and other employees. After obtaining anticipatory bail in the cases, whey they appeared before the respondent Police for abiding the condition, they were arrested in some other fresh cases. Now, they have apprehended arrest in the cases to be filed before the Keelavelavu Police Station. Hence, he has come forward with this application for anticipatory bail.

¶30

Resisting the same, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that in respect of these petitions, even though several items have been given, there is no other petition or case has been https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ registered against the petitioners. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of these applications.

¶31

Recording the submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor that there is no petition or case has been registered against the petitioners in respect of the properties situated in "the respective Police Stations, these petitions are dismissed. However, considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the Investigating Authority, before made an arrest, shall follow rule 41(A) of Cr.P.C.

¶32

()CORRECTED ORDER ISSUED DATED 04/07/2013 BY RMJ**

¶33

/ TRUE COPY /

¶34

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

¶35

¶36

1.THE ADDUTIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶37

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI

¶38

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

¶39

MELAVALAVU POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT.

¶40

3.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

¶41

VIKIRAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT.

¶42

4.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

¶43

DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, MADURAI DISTRICT.

¶44

5.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KEEZHAVALAVU POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT. 6.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MELUR POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT.

¶45

7.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OTHAKADAI POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT.

¶46

+6. CCS to M/S. T.K.S.GANDHI Advocate SR.No.31389 RL/14C - 21/6/2013 RL/9/7/2013

¶47

ORDER

¶48

¶49

CRL OP(MD) Nos.5671 to 5676 of 2013

¶50

Date :18/06/2013

¶51

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

P.Palanichamy v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Palanichamy 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

Thirumal Vs the Inspector of Police

N. Kandasamy Vs the Inspector of Police

Ravikumar Vs the Inspector of Police

K.Kathiresan Vs the Inspector of Police

K.Arulraja, Vs the Inspector of Police

G.Selvaraj Vs the Sub Inspector of Police