Allowed

G.Selvakumar v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC9 Oct 2014CRL OP(MD)/17883/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to three accused persons charged with offences under sections 341, 294(b), 506(ii), 395, and 397 of the IPC. Considering the petitioners had been in judicial custody for over 79 to 84 days while investigation remained incomplete and no charge sheet was filed, the court directed their release on bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners were directed to be released on bail upon execution of a bond for Rs. 10,000 each with two sureties and appearing before the Magistrate at 10.30 a.m.

G.Selvakumar Vs the Inspector of Police — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

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

¶2

Thursday, the Ninth day of October Two Thousand Fourteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr Justice G.CHOCKALINGAM

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.17883 of 2014

¶6

3 NAVEEN RAJA ... PETITIONER(S) / ACCUSED No.1,4 & 6

¶7

THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ABIRAMAM POLICE STATION, RAMNAD DIST, CR.NO. 55/2014 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT

¶8

For Petitioner : M/S.S.ASAITHAMBI Advocate

¶9

For Respondent : Mr.Kanni Devan Government Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶10

PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

¶11

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶12

The petitioners are arrayed as A-1, A-4 and A6 and they have charged for the alleged offence under Sections 341, 294(b), 506(ii), 395 and 397 I.P.C in Crime No.55 of 2014 on the file of the respondent police. The first petitioner surrendered on 21.07.2014, the second petitioner surrendered on 18.07.2014 and the third petitioner surrendered on 23.07.2014.

¶13

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the State and also perused the materials available on record.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first petitioner is in judicial custody for more than 81 days and the second petitioner is in judicial custody for more than 84 days and the third petitioner is in judicial custody for more than 79 days.

¶15

The learned Government Advocate submitted that in this case investigation is not yet completed and charge sheet is not yet filed. Considering the period of incarceration of the petitioners, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail on the following conditions.

¶16

Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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

¶17

of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kamuthi, and on further condition that the petitioners shall appear before the concerned Magistrate Court at 10.30 a.m until further orders.

¶18

sd/09/10/2014 / TRUE COPY /

¶19

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO

¶20

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KAMUTHI. 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, RAMANATHAPURAM. 3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ABIRAMAM POLICE STATION, RAMNAD DISTRICT. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL PRISON, MADURAI +1. CC to M/S.S.ASAITHAMBI Advocate SR.No. 55665. TS/ 09.10.2014/2P-7C

¶21

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.17883 of 2014 Date :09/10/2014

¶22

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

G.Selvakumar v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Selvakumar 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

Jose Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Arikandan @ Kannan @ Jim Vs the Inspector of Police

Lakshmi Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Sankar Vs the Inspector of Police

T. Lelin Vs the Inspector of Police

Jeyachandran Vs the Inspector of Police