Petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail was dismissed because the respondent indicated the complainant had closed the inquiry due to a mistake of fact, rendering no proceedings pending against her.
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 )
Thursday, the Thirtieth day of April Two Thousand Fifteen
PRESENT
The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM
CRL OP(MD) No.3898 of 2015
BHUVANESWARI ... PETITIONER/ ACCUSED
RANK NOT KNOWN
Vs
THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT. CR. NO.NOT KNOWN OF 2015. ... RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT
For Petitioner : M/S.R.UDHAYAKUMAR Advocate
For Respondent : Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)
PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-
The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the respondent has conducted enquiry and the complainant was closed as mistake of fact.
Hence, this petition is dismissed.
sd/30/04/2015
Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)
TO
TS/02.06.2015/1P-3C
ORDER IN
CRL OP(MD) No.3898 of 2015
Date :30/04/2015
1 provisions across 1 enactments
BHUVANESWARI
THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT
K.KALYANASUNDARAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
