Dismissed

K.Kathiresan v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC18 Jun 2013CRL OP(MD)/9710/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought anticipatory bail alleging false implication in offences under IPC Sections 406, 420, and 506. The court refused bail but directed the police not to harass petitioners under the guise of petition enquiry, citing D.K. Basu.

What did the court decide?

No anticipatory bail granted; direction issued to respondent not to harass petitioners under guise of petition enquiry.

K.Kathiresan Vs the Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Tuesday, the Eighteenth day of June Two Thousand Thirteen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA

¶6

CRL OP(MD) No.9710 of 2013

¶7

1 K.KATHIRESAN 2 K.NAGAMMAL 3 K.ANBUSELVI

¶8

4 D.KAVITHA .. PETITIONERS/ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN

¶9

¶10

STATE REP BY

¶11

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PARAMAKUDI TALUK POLICE STATION, RAMANATHPURAM DISTRICT,

¶12

CRIME NO. NOT KNOWN OF 2013. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶13

For Petitioner : M/S.K.M.KARUNAKARAN Advocate

¶14

For Respondent :MR.P.KANDASAMY, Govt.Advocate( Crl. Side)

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶17

The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Section 406, 420 and 506(i) of I.P.C., in Crime No.Not known of 2013 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent person and they have been falsely implicated in this case and hence, they pray for enlargement on anticipatory bail.

¶19

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that on the basis of the complaint given by the de-facto complainant, no case has been registered and only petition enquiry is pending.

¶20

Considering the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. However, I am inclined to give a direction to the respondent not to harass the petitioners under the guise of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petition enquiry. The respondent is directed to follow the dictum laid down in D.K.Basu Vs. State of West Bengal reported in AIR (1997) SC 610 .

¶21

With the above direction, this Criminal Original petition is disposed of.

¶22

sd/18/06/2013 / TRUE COPY /

¶23

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)

¶24

¶25

1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARAMAKUDI TALUK POLICE STATION, RAMANATHPURAM DISTRICT.

¶26

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

¶27

+1. CC to M/S.K.M.KARUNAKARAN Advocate SR.No.31149 ORDER

¶28

¶29

CRL OP(MD) No.9710 of 2013

¶30

Date :18/06/2013

¶31

NA/21/06/2013/P2/4C

¶32

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

K.Kathiresan v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Kathiresan 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

Cases cited

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.Arulraja, Vs the Inspector of Police

G.Selvaraj Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

P.Palanichamy Vs the Inspector of Police