The Madras High Court dismissed an anticipatory bail petition as there was no apprehension of arrest since the respondent dropped the case due to mistake of fact, though inquiry continues.
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 )
Friday, the Seventeenth day of April Two Thousand Fifteen
PRESENT
The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM
CRL OP(MD) No.13324 of 2014
S.S.KANDASAMY ..PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.2
MUTHUKRISHNAN
..INTERVENOR
Vs.
STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, THOOTHUKUDI, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT.
CR. NO. 39 OF 2014.
..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
For Petitioner : M/S.N.ANANDAKUMAR Advocate
For Respondent : Mr.K.V.RAJARAJAN, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) For Intervenor : Mr.T.S.R.VENKATRAMANA, Advocate
PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-
The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that the respondent has dropped the action in this case.
sd/-
17/04/2015
/ TRUE COPY /
Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO
1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, THOOTHUKUDI.
2 -DO-THRO'THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THOOTHUKUDI.
3 THE ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT,MADURAI.
ORDER IN
CRL OP(MD) No.13324 of 2014
Date :17/04/2015
PBK/SAR-I 22/04/2015 ::1P-5C:
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. should be dismissed since the respondent dropped the action due to mistake of fact and no apprehension of arrest exists.
S.S.KANDASAMY
STATE
MUTHUKRISHNAN
K.KALYANASUNDARAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
