Petition filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was dismissed for non-prosecution due to the absence of representation by the petitioners despite listing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )
Wednesday, the Third day of September Two Thousand Fourteen
PRESENT
The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM
CRL OP(MD) No.10550 of 2014
1 THIRUMALAI AMMAL
2 SUBBIAH ... PETITIONER(S) / ACCUSED 1 & 2
Vs
1 THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
OOMATCHIKULAM APPAN THIRUPATHI POLICE
STATION, MADURAI DT, CRIME NO.556/2014 ... RESPONDENTS / COMPLAINANT
For Petitioner : M/S.V.PALANI Advocate
For Respondent : Mr.K.Anbarasan Government Advocate (Crl.side)
For Intervenor : M/S R.Srinivasan Advocate
PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-
When the matter was taken up for hearing on 27.08.2014, there was no representation for the petitioner. Therefore, the matter was listed today under the caption for 'Dismissal'. Even today there is no representation, hence, the petition is dismissed for non- Prosecution.
sd/-
03/09/2014
/ TRUE COPY /
Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)
TO
OOMATCHIKULAM APPAN THIRUPATHI POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT
ORDER IN
CRL OP(MD) No.10550 of 2014 Date :03/09/2014
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Thirumalai Ammal
Subbiah
The State
K Kalyanasundaram
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
