The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court closed a petition for anticipatory bail after the respondent representative submitted that the matter had been settled between the parties, with no representation on behalf of the petitioner appearing.
The petition was closed based on the submission that the matter had been settled between the parties.
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 Sixth day of February Two Thousand Fifteen
PRESENT
The Hon`ble Mr Justice P.N.PRAKASH
CRL OP(MD) No.319 of 2015
C.MAYAN ..PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED Vs.
STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, KODAIKANAL, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. CRIME NO.NOT KNOWN OF 2015 ..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
For Petitioner : M/S.R.VIJAYA GOPAL Advocate (No Appearance)
For Respondent : Mr.A.P.BALASUBRAMANI, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-
Today, when the matter was posted under the caption 'for dismissal' and there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner, police is present.
sd/-
06/02/2015
/ TRUE COPY /
Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO
1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, KODAIKANAL, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.
ORDER IN
CRL OP(MD) No.319 of 2015 Date :06/02/2015 PBK 11/02/2015 ::1P-3C:
C.MAYAN
STATE
P.N.PRAKASH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
