Allowed

Mani @ Muthaiah v. the Assistant Commissioner of

Madras HC14 Feb 2014CRL OP(MD)/2787/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners facing charges of cheating and criminal intimidation. The court imposed conditions including surrender to the magistrate, executing a bond with sureties, and periodic police appearances.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners enlarged on anticipatory bail contingent upon bond with sureties, surrender to Magistrate, and attendance before police as specified.

Mani @ Muthaiah Vs the Assistant Commissioner of — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

Friday, the Fourteenth day of February Two Thousand Fourteen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶6

CRL OP(MD) No.2787 of 2014

¶7

1 MANI @ MUTHAIAH

¶8

2 MARUTHU PANDIAN ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN

¶9

¶10

1B THE STATE REP.BY

¶11

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, TIRUNELVELI CITY,( LAW AND ORDER), TIRUNELVELI.

¶12

2 THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE JUNCTION POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVLEI CITY, TIRUNELVLEI.

¶13

CR. NO. NOT KNOWN OF 2014. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶14

For Petitioner : M/S.R.GANDHI Advocate

¶15

For Respondent : MR.K.V.RAJARAJAN Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶16

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

¶17

The petitioners apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506(i) of IPC in Crime No.not known of 2014 on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.

¶18

According to the defacto complainant, the petitioners borrowed money from him and they neither paid interest nor the principal amount.

¶19

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would submit that the first petitioner has lodged a complaint against the defacto complainant in Crime No.203 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Solavandhan Police Station, Madurai District and as a counterblast, the present false case came to be registered. He would further submit that the second petitioner is the Correspondent of MEM Matriculation Higher Secondary School at Solavandhan.

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that based on the complaint given by the de-facto complainant, petition enquiry is being conducted.

¶23

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

¶24

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. 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.IV, Tirunelveli District and on each of them executing a bond each 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 first petitioner alone shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m for a period of one week and thereafter, both the accused, 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.

¶25

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.

¶26

sd/-

¶27

14/02/2014 / TRUE COPY /

¶28

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO

¶29

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.IV,TIRNELVELI DISTRICT.

¶30

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

¶31

3 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,

¶32

TIRUNELVELI CITY,(LAW AND ORDER),TIRUNELVELI.

¶33

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,JUNCTION POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI CITY,TIRUNELVELI.

¶34

5 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶35

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT,MADURAI.

¶36

+1. CC to M/S.R.KARUNANIDHI, Advocate SR.No.9653

¶37

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

¶38

CRL OP(MD) No.2787 of 2014 PA/14.02.2014/2P/7C Date :14/02/2014

Mani @ Muthaiah v. the Assistant Commissioner of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mani @ Muthaiah v. the Assistant Commissioner of

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

Saleem Mohamed Vs the Inspector of Police

P.Rangaraj Vs the Inspector of Police

Murugan Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

Kannan @ Rajesh Kanna Vs the State Rep.by

N.Kannan Vs the Inspector of Police

Sangaralingam Vs the Inspector of Police