Allowed

Veraiah v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC13 Oct 2015CRL OP(MD)/10920/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners charged under Section 366(A) IPC regarding kidnapping allegations, noting the victim's statements of voluntary elopement. Order includes conditions for surety bonds and police appearances.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with bond of Rs.10,000, two sureties, daily police appearance for first accused, and appearance before Magistrate within 15 days.

Veraiah Vs the Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

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

¶2

Tuesday, the Thirteenth day of October Two Thousand Fifteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶5

CRL OP(MD) Nos.10920 and 11059 of 2015

¶6

1 VEERAIAH 2 ASHOK KUMAR 3 SORNASANGEETHA 4 KUMARASAMY 5 KANNAMBAL ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN IN CRL OP(MD)NO.10920/2015

¶7

1 P.SIVAKUMAR 2 CHINDIYA 3 VIJAYA 4 K.GANDHI ... PETITIONERS/ ACCUSEDRANK NOT KNOWN IN CRL OP(MD)NO.11059/2015

¶8

Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KEERANU POLICE STATION, KEERANUR, PUDUKKOTTAI DT,

¶9

CRIME NO.144 OF 2015

¶10

(Respectively) ... RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT IN BOTH THE CASES

¶11

For Petitioner : M/S.P.GANAPATHI SUBRAMANIAN Advocate

¶12

in both the cases.

¶13

For Respondent : M/S.S.PRABHA, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) in both the cases.

¶14

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

¶15

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶16

The petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 8, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Section 366(A) of I.P.C., in Crime No.144 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.

¶17

According to the de-facto complainant, that on 13.06.2015, evening at 6.00 p.m., the accused have kidnapped his daughter.

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the daughter of the de-facto complainant and the first accused have fallen in love with each other and on her own volition, she left her

¶19

house and in H.C.P.No.910 of 2015, the alleged victim was produced before the Court and she is now residing with her parents. It is further submitted that even after production of the victim before this Court in the above H.C.P., again she eloped with the first accused, for which another case was registered against the petitioner and in that case, she voluntarily appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate and gave a statement stating that she on her own, eloped with the 1^st petitioner and she is residing away from her parents.

¶20

The learned counsel for the intervenor and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that the alleged victim is now residing with her parents.

¶21

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate cum District Munsif, Keeranur and on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the first accused shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m. until further orders and the other petitioners 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.

¶22

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.

¶23

13/10/2015

¶24

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

¶25

Madurai - 625 023.

¶26

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE CUM DISTRICT MUNSIF, KEERANUR. 2 DO THRO'THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,PUDUKKOTTAI. 3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶27

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT,MADURAI 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

¶28

KEERANUR POLICE STATION, KEERANUR, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT. +2. CC to M/S.P.GANAPATHI SUBRAMANIAN, Advocate

¶29

SR.Nos.60693 & 60692

¶30

ORDER IN

¶31

CRL OP(MD) Nos.10920 & 11059 of 2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Date :13/10/2015 rg.17.10.2015/SK/SKN/SAR-II 2P/7C.

Veraiah v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veraiah 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

Ashok Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police

N.Abdul Samad, Vs the Inspector of Police

Baskaran, Vs the Inspector of Police

L. Muthaiah Vs the Inspector of Police

Muthaaru Vs the Inspector of Police

Krishnakumar Vs the Inspector of Police