Allowed

Saleem Mohamed v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC13 Feb 2014CRL OP(MD)/2171/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second petitioner sought anticipatory bail in criminal proceedings. The first petitioner withdrew the petition having already been released on bail. Court granted anticipatory bail to the second petitioner subject to personal bond and summons compliance.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to second petitioner on personal bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and conditions regarding appearance for interrogation and compliance with Section 438 conditions.

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

¶1

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

¶2

Thursday, the Thirteenth day of February Two Thousand Fourteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.2171 of 2014

¶6

SALEEM MOHAMED

¶7

S.HABIBUNNISHA SHEIKH ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2

¶8

¶9

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

¶10

E1 PUDUR POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT. CR. NO. 66/2014. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶11

For Petitioner : M/S.R.BOOMIRAJAN Advocate

¶12

For Respondent : Mrs.S.PRABHA Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶13

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

¶14

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶15

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, on instructions, seeks the permission of this Court to withdraw this criminal original petition in respect of the first petitioner/A1 as he was already arrested and later on enlarged on bail. Recording the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, this criminal original petition is dismissed as withdrawn in respect of the first petitioner/A1.

¶16

The second petitioner, who is arrayed as A2 in Crime No.66 of 2014, on the file of the respondent police, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged commission of offences, said to have been taken place in the year 2013, punishable under Sections 294(b), 420, 323, 355 and 506(ii) I.P.C., seeks anticipatory bail.

¶17

The case of the prosecution is that both the petitioners/A1 and A2 are running a School and the de facto complainant supplied Uniforms and Shoes worth about Rs.89,000/-, but they did not effect payment.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the matter is purely civil in nature and the de facto complainant has given a colour of criminality. Further, the petitioners paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the de facto complainant and also taking steps to pay the remaining amount. Further, the second petitioner/A2, who is the wife of the first petitioner, is nothing to do with the alleged commission of offence.

¶19

Learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit that the first petitioner/A1 was already arrested and enlarged on bail and that the investigation is pending.

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the second petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the State and also perused the entire materials available on record.

¶21

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the second petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the second petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of her arrest or on her appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai, and on executing a personal 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 second petitioner shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation. The second petitioner shall comply with the conditions stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously.

¶22

The second petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail would stand dismissed.

¶23

sd/13/02/2014

¶24

/ TRUE COPY /

¶25

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO

¶26

THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.VI, MADURAI. 2. -DO- THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI. 3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, E1 PUDUR POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT. 4. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI +1. CC to M/S.R.BOOMIRAJAN Advocate SR.No.9686 SR : 17.02.2014 : 2P/6C

¶27

ORDER IN

¶28

CRL OP(MD) No.2171 of 2014

¶29

Date :13/02/2014

¶30

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

Saleem Mohamed v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saleem Mohamed 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

Malarmani Vs the Inspector of Police

Muthaiah Vs the Inspector of Police

Govindaraj Vs the Inspector of Police

P.Rangaraj Vs the Inspector of Police

Murugan Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

P.Ganesan @ Mottulu Ganesan Vs the Inspector of Police