This court dismissed the petitioner's petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., holding that the petition was not entitled to grant due to the serious nature of the allegations.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )
Monday, the Twenty Ninth day of June Two Thousand Fifteen
PRESENT
The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM
CRL OP(MD) No.10306 of 2015
S.MANJUMATHA DEVI ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2
THE STATE REP BY ITSW THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VIGILANCE & ANTI CORRUPTION, DINDIGUL. (CRIME NO. 03/2015) ... RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT\
For Petitioner : M/S.J.JEYAKUMARAN Advocate For Respondent : M/S.K.V.RAJARAJAN,Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)
PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-
The petitioner, who is arrayed as the second accused, in Crime No.03 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120(B) IPC and hence, seeks anticipatory bail.
2.One K.R.Kanchidurai lodged a complaint alleging that the accused have selected one Nagarathinam and Sujatha by committing irregularities with malafide intention for their pecuniary advantages.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was working as Typist on contract basis in the Office of Child Protection Unit, Dindigul, and she was not informed in advance to monitor the typing test and she was also not given proper training before assigning the typing test. It is further submitted the petitioner has no authority to monitor the typing test and even if there is mistake committed by her, that was done without any intention. It is further submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and she has not committed any offence as alleged by the respondent.
4.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) appearing for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the State submitted that the petitioner and one T.S.Krishnamoorthy were working in Child Protection Unit, Dindigul, and for selection
of eligible candidates for appointment in District Employment Officce and Juvenile Justice Board, Dindigul, the accused were assigned to monitor the typing test and give a report. The accused have not noticed the mistakes committed by Nagarathinam and Sujatha and selected for their pecuniary advantages. It is further submitted that the accused have done a heinous crime and she is not entitled for anticipatory bail.
sd/-
29/06/2015
/ TRUE COPY /
Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO
1.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI
2.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VIGILANCE & ANTI CORRUPTION, DINDIGUL.
RL/3C – 2/7/2015
ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.10306 of 2015 Date :29/06/2015
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in the alleged offence of corruption and cheating.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
S. Manjumatha Devi
The State represented by its the Inspector of Police Vigilance & Anti Corruption, Dindigul
K. Kalyanasundaram
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
