Dismissed

D.Vijaya Singh v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC19 Mar 2015CRL OP(MD)/17791/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This short order discharged an anticipatory bail petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioner failed to comply with court directions to appear before the police for a week and did not resolve the compromise as directed. Consequently, the court declined to allow withdrawal and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition No.17791 of 2014 is dismissed; the petitioners are not granted anticipatory bail.

D.Vijaya Singh Vs the Inspector of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

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

¶2

Thursday, the Nineteenth day of March Two Thousand Fifteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr Justice P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.17791 of 2014

¶6

1 D.VIJAYA SINGH

¶7

2 V.SAROJINI ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN

¶8

¶9

THE STATE REP.BY

¶10

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ANTI LAND GRABBING SPECIAL UNIT, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. CR. NO. NOT KNOWN OF 2014. ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT

¶11

For Petitioner : M/S.R.ANAND Advocate

¶12

For Respondent : MR.A.P.BALASUBRAMANIAN, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶13

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

¶14

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶15

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC, seek anticipatory bail.

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State.

¶17

This Court granted interim anticipatory bail to these petitioners on 29.01.2015 with a direction to them to appear before the respondent police daily at 10:30a.m. for one week. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 05.02.2105 and thereafter, the interim anticipatory bail was further extended upto 20.02.2015. Again on 23.02.2015, it was extended upto 02.03.2015. Subsequently on 02.03.2015, it was extended upto today.

¶18

Today, the respondent police have filed a status report, wherein in Paragraph No.6, it is stated as follows:

¶19

“6. It is submitted that this Hon'ble Court passed orders on 29.01.2015 directing the petitioners to appear before the respondent police every day at 10.30 a.m. for the period of one week. The petitioner Vijayasing moved a compromise by paying Rs.9,00,000/- to the defacto complainant Murugesan and attended Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell only on 30.01.2015 and promised to pay the balance amount on 02.02.2015, but Petitioner Vijayasingh did not stand upto his promise and gave a written statement that he would pay balance on 04.02.2015 and thereafter he has not complied with the order of the Hon'ble High Court. Subsequently, on the dates of hearing on 23.02.2015 and 02.03.2015, the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature passed orders consecutively directing the petitioners to appear before https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Respondent Police and the petitioners willfully neglected their appearance at Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell before the Respondent police.”

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the first petitioner is a very aged person and he is not able to move.

¶21

Per contra, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) on instructions from the respondent police submits that the 1^st petitioner is going by his motor bike every day crossing the respondent police station and therefore, the contention that he is very old, is not true.

¶22

At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the petition. This Court has declined to give permission to the learned counsel for the petitioner to withdraw the petition, after having enjoyed the benefit of order, the petitioners cannot be permitted to withdraw this petition.

¶23

Taking into consideration the serious nature of allegations against these petitioners and also the fact that these petitioners have not complied with the orders of this Court, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory to them. Hence, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/19/03/2015

¶24

/ TRUE COPY /

¶25

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO

¶26

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

¶27

2.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

¶28

ANTI LAND GRABBING SPECIAL UNIT, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.

¶29

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.17791 of 2014 Date :19/03/2015 rg.25.03.2015 2p/3c.

¶30

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

D.Vijaya Singh v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Vijaya Singh 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

Suresh Vs the Inspector of Police

Sivaramasubramanian Vs the Inspector of Police

Arun Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police

Amirtharaj Vs the Inspector of Police

K.Ramesh Vs the Inspector of Police

M. Saminathan Vs the Inspector of Police