Allowed

R. Murugesan v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC15 Sept 2014CRL OP(MD)/16381/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused of offences under Sections 294(B), 323, 324 and 506(ii) IPC, on the condition of daily police appearance, surety execution, and compliance with statutory requirements, noting the injured has been discharged.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with conditions: ₹10,000 fine bond with two sureties, daily police appearance for one week, and compliance with Section 438 Cr.P.C. criteria.

R. Murugesan Vs the Inspector of Police — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

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

¶2

Monday, the Fifteenth day of September Two Thousand Fourteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.16381 of 2014

¶6

R.MURUGESAN ..PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED Vs.

¶7

STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KARUR TOWN POLICE STATION, KARUR DISTRICT. CRIME NO.538/2014 ..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶8

For Petitioner : M/S.G.KARUPPASAMY PANDIAN Advocate

¶9

For Respondent : Mr.K.A.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 petitioner who is arrayed as an accused apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(B), 323, 324 and 506(ii) of IPC, in Crime No.538 of 2014, on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶13

2.The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity with regard to civil dispute, the petitioner abused the de-facto complainant with filthy language and attacked him with wooden log and threatened the de-facto complainant with dire consequences.

¶14

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.

¶15

4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the injured has been discharged from the hospital.

¶16

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the injured has been discharge from the hospital, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, with certain conditions.

¶17

6.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.1, Karur and on his executing 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 Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of one week and thereafter as and when required. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously.

¶18

7.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.

sd/-

15/09/2014

/ TRUE COPY /

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, KARUR.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARUR TOWN POLICE STATION, KARUR DISTRICT.

¶26

+1. CC to M/S.SIVARAM, Advocate SR.No.52029

¶27

ORDER IN

¶28

CRL OP(MD) No.16381 of 2014

¶29

Date :15/09/2014

¶30

PBK 16/09/2014 ::2P-6C:

¶31

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

R. Murugesan v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Murugesan 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

Vinothraj Vs the Inspector of Police

Manikanda Raja Vs the Sub-Inspector of Police

Shanmugam Vs the Inspector of Police

S.J.Cephas Jackwin Vs the Inspector of Police

G.Prakash Vs the Inspector of Police

Abbas @ Raja Vs the Inspector of Police