Allowed

R. Sridhar v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC5 Aug 2013CRL OP(MD)/8921/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners accused under Sections 498A and 406 IPC. Bail was released with stringent conditions including deposit of the payment in question, execution of bond, daily appearance before the Magistrate, and compliance with Section 438 Cr.P.C. conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners ordered to be released on bail subject to conditions: deposit of payment, execution of bond with sureties, and daily court appearance.

R. Sridhar Vs the Inspector of Police — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

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

¶2

Monday, the Fifth day of August Two Thousand Thirteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice A.ARUMUGHASWAMY CRL OP(MD)Nos.8921 & 10824 of 2013

¶3

1 R. SRIDHAR 2 S. SUMATHI 3 S. RADHAKRISHNAN ..PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2,3 & 4 in Crl.OP(MD)No.8921/213 S.RAMAKRISHNAN ..PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No.1 in Crl.OP(MD)No.10824/213

¶4

RASHME

¶5

..INTERVENOR IN MP(MD)No.1/13 in Crl.OP(MD)No.8921/213

¶6

Vs. STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CONTONMENT ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, TRICHY -620 001. (CRIME NO.25 OF 2013) ..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT IN BOTH THE PETITIONS

¶7

For Petitioner : M/S.S.C.HEROLD SINGH Advocate in Both the petitions

¶8

For Respondent : Mr.P.KANNITHEVAN, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶9

in Both the petitions

¶10

For Intervenor : Mr.Veera Kathiravan, Advocate in Crl.OP(MD)No.8921/2013

¶11

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

¶12

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶13

Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406 of I.P.C, in Cr.No.25 of 2013, on the file of the respondent police, the petitioners have forward with the present petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and a false case has been foisted against them. They have nothing to do with the commission of alleged offence mentioned in the F.I.R. He further submits that the main accused will not leave the country in connection with his job, unless the Court permits him to do so. Hence, they have come forward with this petition for anticipatory bail.

¶15

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

¶16

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the specific submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the main accused will not leave the country, unless the Court permits him to do so, the petitioners are ordered to be released on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ bail, in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Trichirapalli District, subject to the following stringent conditions:-

¶17

i) The petitioners shall deposit the payment in question within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Trichirapali;

¶18

ii) On receipt of deposit, each of the petitioners shall 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 Judicial Magistrate-II, Trichirapali, and

¶19

(iii) The petitioners shall appear before the learned Magistrate-II, Trichirapali, daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders.

¶20

(iv) The petitioners shall comply with the conditions stipulated

¶21

under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously.

¶22

The petitioners 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 petitions for anticipatory bail stand dismissed. It is made clear that the investigating officer is at liberty to examine the petitioners for interrogation in the manner known to law, but, not in the form of harassment.

¶23

sd/-

¶24

05/08/2013 / TRUE COPY /

¶25

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)

¶26

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II, TRICHY.

¶27

2 -do-thro'THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,TRICHY.

¶28

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

¶29

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CONTONMENT ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, TRICHY -620 001.

¶30

+2. CC to M/S.S.C.HEROLD SINGH Advocate SR.No.39567

¶31

ORDER IN

¶32

CRL OP(MD)Nos.8921 & 10824 of 2013

¶33

Date :05/08/2013

¶34

PBK 13/08/2013 2P/7C

¶35

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

R. Sridhar v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Sridhar 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

N. Sarojini Vs D. Suba Sundar

Marimuthu Vs the Inspector of Police

Desavijayan, Vs Reka

S.Ramakrishnan Vs the Inspector of Police

Sakthi Devi Vs the Inspector of Police

Krishnasamy Vandaiyar Vs the Inspector of Police