Allowed

Ravikumar v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC17 Jun 2013CRL OP(MD)/7931/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C., who apprehended arrest for offences punishable under Sections 392 r/w 397, 506(ii) IPC. The court imposed conditions including executing a bond with sureties, reporting daily, and appearing before the magistrate within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail to be released on execution of bond with sureties, on daily reporting, and appearance before Magistrate within 15 days.

Ravikumar Vs the Inspector of Police — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

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

¶2

Monday, the Seventeenth day of June Two Thousand Thirteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.7931 of 2013

¶6

RAVIKUMAR ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2

¶7

¶8

STATE REP BY

¶9

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE TALLAKULAM POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT. CRIME NO. 659/2012 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶10

For Petitioner : M/S.J. VIJAYA RAJA Advocate For Respondent : M/S.A.P.BALASUBRAMANI, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶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 offence punishable under Sections 392 r/w 397, 506(ii) of I.P.C., in Crime No.659 of 2012 on the file of the respondent police and hence seeks anticipatory bail.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that because of the co-accused's confession only, this petitioner name has been implicated and the accused Nos.1 and 3 were already arrested and the material objects were seized from the accused. He further submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case and hence, he prays for enlargement on anticipatory bail.

¶15

Resisting the same, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side)would submit that the alleged occurrence is said to have been taken place on 13.06.2012 and the accused Nos.1 and 3 have waylaid the complainant and snatched the golden chain and the accused Nos.1 and 3 were already arrested on 17.06.2012 and they are enlarged on bail and the material objects were seized from the accused and the investigation is going on and hence, he prays for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ dismissal of this application.

¶16

Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and on perusal of the records, it shows that the alleged occurrence is said to have been taken place on 13.06.2012 and the accused Nos.1 and 3 were already arrested on 17.06.2012 and they were enlarged on bail and the material objects were seized and even though, the petitioner was not arrested neither he interfered with the investigation nor absconded from the jurisdiction, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, with certain conditions.

¶17

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai and on execute 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 report 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.

¶18

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.

¶19

/ TRUE COPY /

¶20

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶21

¶22

1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II MADURAI

¶23

2.DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE MADURAI DISTRICT

¶24

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

¶25

4.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

¶26

TALLAKULAM POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT.

¶27

+1. CC to M/S.J. VIJAYA RAJA Advocate SR.No.30779 RL/6C - 19/6/2013

¶28

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

Ravikumar v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravikumar 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

B.Radhakrishnan Vs the Inspector of Police

A.Saibunnisa Vs the Deputy Superintendent

B.Suriyanarayanan, Vs the Superintendent of Police

Thirumal Vs the Inspector of Police

N. Kandasamy Vs the Inspector of Police

Saravanan Vs the Inspector of Police