Disposed

Vellaisamy v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC9 Apr 2015CRL OP(MD)/2345/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench granted anticipatory bail to the second petitioner, a female accused, permitting arrest conditional upon execution of a bond before the Judicial Magistrate and appearing for interrogation.

What did the court decide?

The second petitioner is released on bail upon arrest; bonded conditionally to appear before the Magistrate within 15 days and comply with police requirements.

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

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Ninth day of April Two Thousand Fifteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.2345 of 2015

¶6

..1^ST PETITIONER/ACCUSED (RANK NOT KNOWN)

¶7

1 VELLAISAMY ..1^ST PETITIONER/ACCUSED (RANK NOT KNOWN) 2 DEEPA .. 2ND PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.9

¶8

STATE REP.BY

¶9

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE TOWN WEST-POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. CR. NO.429/2014. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶10

For Petitioner : M/S.D.BALAMURUGAPANDI Advocate

¶11

For Respondent : MR.K.V.RAJARAJAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶12

For Intervenor : MR.S.C.HEROLD SINGH, Advocate

¶13

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶14

The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 417, 498, 366 I.P.C and 379 IPC(NP) of IPC in Crime No.429 of 2014 and hence, seek anticipatory bail.

¶15

2 .The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) submitted that the first petitioner is not accused in this case. Hence, this petition against the first petitioner is dismissed.

¶16

The case of the prosecution is that on 29.11.2014, the daughter of the defacto complainant aged about 20 years was kidnapped by Irulandi, who is arrayed as the first accused and his relatives for arranging a marriage.

¶17

4.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that other accused were already arrested and released on bail and the second petitioner/A9 is no way connected with the allegations made in the complaint.

¶18

The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor submitted that the alleged victim is not secured so far and a Habeas Corpus Petition is also pending before this Court. It is further contended that the respondent police are moving application for cancellation of bail granted to the other accused.

¶19

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ counsel appearing for the intervenor and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the State and also perused the entire

¶20

¶21

materials available on record.

¶22

7. Considering the fact that the second petitioner is a lady and

¶23

other accused were arrested and released on bail, I am inclined to enlarge the second petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the second petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on her appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul, 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 to the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the second petitioners shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation. The second petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously.

¶24

8. The second petitioner shall appear before the concerned

¶25

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/-

09/04/2015

/ TRUE COPY /

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)

¶30

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

¶31

Madurai - 625 023.

¶32

¶33

THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, DINDIGUL.

¶34

DO-THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,DINDIGUL.

¶35

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE TOWN WEST-POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

¶36

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

¶37

+1. CC to M/S.D.BALAMURUGAPANDI Advocate SR.No.18128

¶38

+1cc to Mr.S.C.HEROLD SINGH,Advocate, SR.No.18122

¶39

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.2345 of 2015 Date :09/04/2015

¶40

PA/10.04.2015/2P/7C

¶41

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

Vellaisamy v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vellaisamy 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

P.Surendhar Vs the Inspector of Police

Shanmugaprasad Vs the Inspector of Police

Karuppasamy Vs the Inspector of Police

Thankakan Vs the Inspector of Police

M.Ragunathan Vs the Inspector of Police

Arumugam Vs the Inspector of Police