Allowed

Arumugam v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC17 Sept 2014CRL OP(MD)/16758/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to two petitioners accused of cheating and forgery crimes, imposing conditions regarding bail appearance, interrogation frequency, and execution of a bond with two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners ordered to be released on bail upon arrest with conditions including bond execution, surety requirements, and specific reporting arrangements.

Arumugam Vs the Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Seventeenth day of September Two Thousand Fourteen PRESENT

¶3

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶4

CRL OP(MD) No.16758 of 2014

¶5

1 ARUMUGAM 2 S.PERUMAL ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 4 AND 5

¶6

¶7

STATE.REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE RADHAPURAM POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT,

¶8

CR.NO.155/2013 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶9

For Petitioner : M/S.S.R.ANBARASU Advocate

¶10

For Respondent : MR.K.ANBARASAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶11

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶12

The petitioners are A4 and A5 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 465, 468 and 420 of IPC, in Crime No.155 of 2013, on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.

¶13

2.The case of the prosecution is that the father-in-law of the de-facto complainant purchased undivided half share in Survey Nos.226/1 and 226/3A at Udayathur Village, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District, through a sale deed, dated 24.11.1959 from one Kullan and thereafter, the vendor has sold the property to the other accused.

¶14

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that in this case, A3 had purchased 10 cents, out of 1.17 acres in S.F.Nos.226/1 and 226/3A from the original owner and the petitioners have purchased about 22 cents from the said Kullan, which were part of his unsold property in the above survey numbers. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that A3, who is similarly placed accused, was granted anticipatory bail by this court in Crl.O.P(MD)No.15163 of 2014, dated 21.08.2014.

¶15

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that the 2^nd petitioner is suffering from postural hypertension and he could stand even for a minute.

¶16

5.Heard the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent.

¶17

6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, with certain conditions.

¶18

¶19

7.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vallioor, Tirunelveli District and on each of them 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 1^st petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m. until further orders and the 2^nd petitioner shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously.

¶20

8.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.

¶21

sd/17/09/2014 / TRUE COPY /

¶22

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)

¶23

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

¶24

Madurai - 625 023.

¶25

¶26

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VALLIOOR,TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.

¶27

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

¶28

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE RADHAPURAM POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.

¶29

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

¶30

+1. CC to M/S.S.R.ANBARASU Advocate SR.No.52582

¶31

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.16758 of 2014 Date :17/09/2014 PA/19.09.2014/2P/6C

¶32

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

Arumugam v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arumugam 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

Thangamani Vs the Inspector of Police

Manikandan Vs the Sub-Inspector of Police

Manikandan Vs the Inspector of Police

Perumal Vs the Inspector of Police

Ravanan Vs the Inspector of Police

Bakiaraj Vs the Inspector of Police