Allowed

K.Karuppasami @ Pandian v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC11 Sept 2014CRL OP(MD)/12661/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to five petitioners facing allegations under IPC sections 498(A), 294(B), 506(ii) and the Women Harassment Act. Bail was conditional upon appearance before the Magistrate within 15 days, execution of bond, and police interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted pending inquiry; appearance before Magistrate within 15 days; execution of bond Rs.10,000 with two sureties; appearance before police when required.

K.Karuppasami @ Pandian Vs the Inspector of Police — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

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

¶2

Thursday, the Eleventh day of September Two Thousand Fourteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.12661 of 2014

¶6

1 K.KARUPPASAMI @ PANDIAN 2 GOVINDARAJ 3 ANNAMAL 4 K.KALEESWARI 5 K.RAJAGURU ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED No.1 to 5

¶7

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, SRIVILLIPUTHUR, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT CRIME NO.NOT KNOWN OF 2014 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT

¶8

For Petitioner :Mr.M.Jegadeeshpandian Advocate for M/S.K.J.ASSOCIATES

¶9

For Respondent : Mr.K.Anbarasan, Government Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶10

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

¶11

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶12

The petitioners are A1 to A5 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under sections 498 (A), 294(B) and 506(ii) of IPC and section 4 of the Women Harassment Act and hence, seek anticipatory bail.

¶13

2.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are innocent persons and due to previous enmity with regard to family dispute between the petitioners and the de-facto complainant, a false case has been foisted against the petitioners and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and prays for anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioners.

¶14

3.It is submitted by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) that only petition enquiry is pending.

¶15

4.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that only petition enquiry is pending, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, with certain conditions.

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputhur and on each of them executing a bond for

¶17

a sum of Rs.10000/-(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 petitioners shall appear before the respondent police as and when required. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously. The anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners is only for the purpose of enabling the petitioners to appear before the Police for interrogation and if any case has been registered on the basis of the investigation, the anticipatory bail granted shall not enure to the benefit of the petitioners and they will have to seek anticipatory bail through Court.

¶18

6.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 petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed.

¶19

/ TRUE COPY /

¶20

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)

¶21

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

¶22

Madurai - 625 023.

¶23

¶24

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II, SRIVILLIPUTHUR

¶25

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE VIRUTHUNAGAR AT SRIVILLIPUTHUR

¶26

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

¶27

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, SRIVILLIPUTHUR, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.

¶28

+1. CC to M/S.K.J.ASSOCIATES Advocate SR.No.51662

¶29

CRL OP(MD) No.12661 of 2014 Date :11/09/2014 gdr 15.09.2014 2p/6C

¶30

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

K.Karuppasami @ Pandian v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Karuppasami @ Pandian 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

Raju Vs the Inspector of Police

G.Selvakumar Vs the Inspector of Police

Hussain Vs the Inspector of Police

Alagu Pazhamuthirsolai Vs the Inspector of Police

Rajapandi Vs the Inspector of Police

D.Jeyapaul Vs the Inspector of Police