Allowed

S.V. Kalimuthu v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC7 Oct 2015CRL OP(MD)/16508/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants anticipatory bail to the petitioner apprehending arrest under matrimonial and cheating charges. The petitioner is released on bail upon executing a bond with sureties and appearing daily before police.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be released on bail by executing a bond with two sureties and complying with daily police appearance and other stipulated conditions.

S.V. Kalimuthu Vs the Inspector of Police — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

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

¶2

Wednesday, the Seventh day of October Two Thousand Fifteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.16508 of 2015

¶6

S.V. KALIMUTHU ... PETITIONER / SOLE ACCUSED

¶7

¶8

THE STATE REP.BY

¶9

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, TIRUMANGALAM, MADURAI DISTRICT CRIME NO 98 OF 2015 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT

¶10

For Petitioner : M/S K.SUDALAIYANDI Advocate

¶11

For Respondent : MRS.S.PRABHA Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶12

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

¶13

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶14

The Petitioner, who is arrayed as accused, apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 406, 294(b) and 506(i)IPC in Crime No. 98 of 2015 on the file of the respondent Police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶15

According to the de-facto complainant, she was married with the petitioner/accused in the year 2012 and she was provided with 50 sovereigns of gold jewels and household articles worth of Rs.50,000/- and thereafter, the petitioner/accused have sold the entire jewels to purchase an auto and thereafter, she was driven away from the matrimonial home when she was in six months pregnancy.

¶16

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner/accused had purchased an auto, which met with an accident and therefore, he could not redeem the jewels of the de-facto complainant and therefore, the dispute arose between them.

¶17

It is further submitted that as per the direction of this Court, both the parties had appeared before the Mediation and when the petitioner was ready for reunion, the de-facto complainant insisting for return of jewels and hence, the Mediation could not succeed.

¶18

Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent Police.

¶19

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is

¶20

inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tirumangalam, Madurai District, 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 petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.00 am until further orders. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously.

¶21

The Petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate with a period of 15 days form the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed.

sd/-

07/10/2015

/ TRUE COPY /

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,TIRUMANGALAM,MADURAI DISTRICT

¶28

2 DO THRO THE CHEIF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,MADURAI DISTRICT

¶29

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, TIRUMANGALAM, MADURAI DISTRICT.

¶30

4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT MADURAI

¶31

+1. CC to M/S K.SUDALAIYANDI Advocate SR.No.59019.

¶32

ORDER

¶33

¶34

CRL OP(MD) No.16508 of 2015 Date :07/10/2015

¶35

AM/12.10.2015/AMF/SAR-I/2P/6C

¶36

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

S.V. Kalimuthu v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.V. Kalimuthu 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

Lakshmianandan Vs the Inspector of Police

Pandi Vs the Inspector of Police

Amaresan Vs the State Rep

K. Anbalagan Vs State Rep by Inspector of

S.K. Sudhakar Vs State Rep by Inspector of

Pandilthurail Vs the State Rep by Ins of Police