Dismissed

Raju v. Palanisamy

Madras HC7 Jan 2014CRL RC(MD)/892/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by a de-facto complainant seeking to cancel anticipatory bail granted to accused persons. The Court held that the impugned order was based on multiple factors, not solely the victim's discharge, and found no reason to interfere.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision case is dismissed; the order rejecting reduction of anticipatory bail is maintained.

Raju Vs Palanisamy — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

Raju

¶3

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.01.2014

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN

¶6

Crl.R.C.(MD).No.892 of 2013

...Petitioner

1.Palanisamy

2.Anandhi

3.Sadeswari

4.The Sub Inspector of Police, Irukkankudi Police Station. Crime No.385/2012

¶12

...Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Petition filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the order dated 15.04.2013 made in Cr.M.P.No.7616/2012, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Srivilliputhur and to set aside the same by allowing this Crl.R.C.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Balamurugan For R1 to R3 : Mr.R.karunanithi For R4 : Mrs.S.Prabha Govt. Advocate

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This revision is filed against the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Srivilliputtur rejecting the request made by the petitioner/de-facto complainant to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent/accused Nos.1 to 3.

¶17

2.The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Srivilliputtur granted anticipatory bail in Cr.M.P.No.7200 of 2012 dated 16.11.2012 to the respondents/accused, taking into consideration that the complainant was assaulted by the accused with lethal weapons and also considering the submission made by the accused that the injured was discharged from the hospital on stringent conditions.

¶18

3.The order itself indicates that considering the fact that the complainant was assaulted by the respondents/accused with lethal weapons stringent conditions was imposed. Therefore, it cannot be said that the learned Judge granted anticipatory bail only on the ground that the injured was discharged from the hospital. The discharge summary does not show the nature of injury. Further it cannot be said that granting of bail is subject to the injured discharged from the hospital.

¶19

4.The learned Sessions Judge thought it fit to grant anticipatory https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ bail taking into consideration of the other facts and released the petitioner by granting anticipatory bail by imposing stringent

¶20

¶21

conditions. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Srivilliputtur rejecting the application for cancellation of anticipatory bail. Hence, this criminal revision case is dismissed.

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

Ns To

¶24

1.The Principal Sessions Court, Srivilliputtur.

¶25

2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Irukkankudi Police Station.

¶26

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶27

+1CC to Mr.S.Balamurugan, Advocate in SR.No. 2072

¶28

Crl.R.C(MD).No.892 of 2013 07.01.2014

¶29

rg.27.01.2014 2p/5c.

¶30

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

Raju v. Palanisamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju v. Palanisamy

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

A.M. Malairajan Vs the Inspector of Police

Selvakumar @ Palaniyandi Vs the Intelligence Officer

Esthar Kamalam Vs Mrs. Mathina

The Inspector of Police Vs P.Rajeshkumar

Moorthy Vs the Sub-Inspector of Police

Kavitha Vs the Inspector of Police