Allowed

P.Parameswaran v. State Rep. by

Madras HC6 Jul 2015CRL OP/16503/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted a conditional direction to the Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, to consider and dispose pending bail application of the petitioner under the SC/ST Act on the same day of his surrender in the prescribed manner.

What did the court decide?

Prayer granted: Accountability directed to Principal Sessions Judge to consider and dispose of the bail application on merits and on the same day of surrender.

P.Parameswaran Vs State Rep. by — Caste Atrocities | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED:06.07.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.16503 of 2015

¶6

P.Parameswaran .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State rep. By The Inspector of Police, Kangeyam Police Station, Tiruppur District. .. Respondent

¶9

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to direct the Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur to consider the bail application of the petitioner herein in Crime No.350 of 2015 on the file of the respondent Police, on the same day of surrender.

¶10

For Petitioner :: Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel For Respondent :: Mr.C.Emalias Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R

¶11

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for a direction to the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur to consider the bail application of the petitioner on the same day on his surrender in Crime No.350 of 2015 pending on the file of the respondent.

¶12

The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner has been implicated in this case for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 323 of I.P.C., r/w 3(1)(r), 3(1) (s), 3(2)(Va) of S.C. & S.T.Act 1989 and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Ordinance Act 2014 and that in view of the specific bar under Section 18 of the said Act, the petitioner cannot move any anticipatory bail application and therefore, the petitioner has come forward with the said prayer.

¶13

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor takes notice for the respondent.

¶14

Considering the submissions of both sides and also considering the nature of the prayer in this case in view of the specific bar under Section 18 of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act that the petitioner cannot move any anticipatory bail, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur is directed to consider the bail application, in the event of the petitioner filing such petition in Crime No.350 of 2015 on the file of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent police, and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law on the same day.

¶15

With this observation, this petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶16

Assistant Registrar

¶17

True Copy

¶18

Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Kangeyam Police Station,
Tiruppur District.
2.The Principal Sessions Judge,
Tiruppur.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
1 cc to Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel , Advocate Sr.No.33724
Crl. O.P. No.16503 of 2015
lrs(co)
pmk.15.7.2015

¶19

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

P.Parameswaran v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Parameswaran v. State Rep. by

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

V.Thayammal Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Mr.Srinivasan Vs State Rep. by

R.Baskaran Vs Ramadoss

N.Rajagopal Vs State Rep. by

A.M.Giri Vs State Rep. by

K.Sundari Kannan Vs the State Rep. by