Allowed

R.Loganathan, v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC24 Nov 2015CRL OP(MD)/13198/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to three accused apprehending arrest in a case involving alleged rioting, hurt, and criminal intimidation arising from a tenancy dispute.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest on executing a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties, appearing before police daily, and complying with Section 438 Cr.P.C. co

R.Loganathan, Vs the Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Tuesday, the Twenty Fourth day of November Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.13198 of 2015

¶6

1 R.LOGANATHAN,

¶7

2 R.SURESH KUMAR 3 V.SIVANATHAM ALIAS SIVA ..PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3

¶8

Vs.

¶9

STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARIMEDU POLICE STATION, MADURAI CITY. (CRIME NO.671/2015) ..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶10

For Petitioner : M/S.VEERAKATHIRAVAN Advocate

¶11

For Respondent : Mr.K.ANBARASAN, Government Advocate (Crl.side)

¶12

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

¶13

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶14

The petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No.671 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323,324 and 506(II) of I.P.C and Section 4 of Women Harassment Act and hence, seek anticipatory bail.

¶15

2.The case of the prosecution is that the first Petitioner is a tenant of de-facto complainant and a dispute arose between them in vacating the house premises and due to that the Petitioners said to have assaulted the de-facto complainant and hence, a case has been registered against them as referred to above.

¶16

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case.

¶17

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) on instruction would submit that the injured has already been discharged from the hospital.

¶18

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the injured has already been discharged from the hospital, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

¶19

6.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, Madurai and on executing a bond 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 petitioners shall appear before the respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ police daily at 10.00 a.m., until further orders. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously.

¶20

7.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. sd/-

¶21

24/11/2015

¶22

/ TRUE COPY /

¶23

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.IV, MADURAI.

¶24

2 -do-thro'THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI.

¶25

3 THE ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT,MADURAI.

¶26

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARIMEDU POLICE STATION, MADURAI CITY.

¶27

+1. CC to M/S.VEERAKATHIRAVAN Advocate SR.No.67212

¶28

ORDER IN

¶29

CRL OP(MD) No.13198 of 2015

¶30

Date :24/11/2015

¶31

PBK/AN/SAR-II 25/11/2015 ::2P-6C:

¶32

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

R.Loganathan, v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Loganathan, 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

A. Mushabarsha Vs the Inspector of Police

J.Rathinasamy Vs the Inspector of Police

A. Ananthakrishnan Vs the Inspector of Police

V. Ramasubramanian Vs the Inspector of Police

Pon Bharath Vs the Inspector of Police

Jothimurugan Vs the Intelligence Officer