Allowed

T.S.Marimuthu v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC22 Jan 2014CRL OP(MD)/1012/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous petition before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, the Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, a sole accused in an IPC case involving public nuisance and criminal intimidation, subject to specific reporting and surety conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail upon personal bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties of similar amount, daily police reporting for two weeks, and appearance before Magistrate within 15 days.

T.S.Marimuthu Vs the Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

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

¶2

Wednesday, the Twenty Second day of January Two Thousand Fourteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.1012 of 2014

¶6

T.S.MARIMUTHU ... PETITIONER / SOLE ACCUSED

¶7

THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THATTAPARAI POLICE STATION, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT, CRIME NO. 14 OF 2014. ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT

¶8

For Petitioner : M/S.I.ROBERT CHANDRAKUMAR Advocate

¶9

For Respondent : M/S.K.V.RAJARAJAN, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶10

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

¶11

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶12

The petitioner is the sole accused and apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 294 (b) and 506 (ii) IPC in Crime No.14 of 2014, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶13

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, his wife and her sister, came to the house of the defacto complainant and detained them and in this regard, she has given a complaint and consequently, this petitioner and his sister were arrested. Due to this, the petitioner came with Aruval to the house of the defacto complainant and threatened her with dire consequences.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there was a dispute with regard to the drawing of water and therefore, the above said false complaint came to be lodged against the petitioner and the petitioner is falsely implicated.

¶15

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the petitioner is injured in two previous cases in Crime Nos.143 and 201 of 2013 respectively and that nobody had sustained any injury.

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) appearing for the State and also perused the entire materials available on record.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thoothukudi and on executing a personal 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 appear before the respondent police daily at 11.00 a.m for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required. 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

sd/-

¶20

22/01/2014 / TRUE COPY /

¶21

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

¶22

Madurai - 625 023.

¶23

¶24

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, THOOTHUKUDI.

¶25

2 -DO-THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THOOTHUKUDI.

¶26

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THATTAPARAI POLICE STATION, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT,

¶27

4 THE ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶28

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶29

+1. CC to M/S.I.ROBERT CHANDRAKUMAR Advocate SR.No.3780.

¶30

ORDER

¶31

¶32

CRL OP(MD) No.1012 of 2014

¶33

Date :22/01/2014 msm 27.01.2014 p2/6c

¶34

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

T.S.Marimuthu v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.S.Marimuthu 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

Nagaraj Vs the Inspector of Police

Amirtha Kadeswarar Vs the Inspector of Police

Irulandi Vs the Inspector of Police

A. Karuppaiah Vs the Inspector of Police

R. Dharmaraja Vs the Inspector of Police

Karuthapandi Vs the Inspector of Police