Dismissed

Salomon, v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Madras HC18 Aug 2016CRL MP(MD)/6291/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the second respondent earlier, alleging she violated attendance conditions. The court found the respondent had complied based on police records and granted relief to relax conditions, dismissed the cancellation petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition for cancellation of anticipatory bail was dismissed. Court found no violation of appearance conditions as the accused had complied with weekly attendance order.

Salomon, Vs the Sub Inspector of Police — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

Thursday, the Eighteenth day of August Two Thousand Sixteen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI

¶6

CRL MP(MD) No.6291 of 2016 IN CRL OP(MD) No.21467 of 2015

¶7

SALOMON ... PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶8

1 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KEERANUR POLICE STATION, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT, CR.NO. 242 OF 2015 ...1^st RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶9

2 PAVULIN MARY ...2^nd RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.1

¶10

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the petition filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to cancel the Anticipatory Bail order passed in Crl.OP(MD) NO. 21467 of 2015 dated 24.11.2015 by this Honourable Court.

¶11

Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S G.MATHAVAN, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr.K.ANBARASAN, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) on behalf of the R1 and Mr.B.JAMEEL ARASU, Advocate for R2, the court made the following order:-

¶12

This petition is filed to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the 2^nd respondent in Crl.O.P(MD).No.21467 of 2015, dated 24.11.2015.

¶13

The second respondent charged for the offences under Sections 294(b),323,324 and 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.242 of 2015 on the file of the first respondent Police.

¶14

This Court by order dated 24.11.2015 in Crl.O.P(MD). No.24.11.2015 granted anticipatory bail to the 2^nd respondent and others imposing condition that the second respondent and others should appear before the first respondent daily at 10.00 am until further orders.

¶15

According to the petitioner, second respondent did not comply with the condition imposed by this Court and did not appear before the respondent police. Suppressing the fact the 2^nd respondent filed M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2015 in Crl.O.P(MD).No.21467 of 2015 for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ relaxation before this Court and this Court, by order dated 21.12.2015, recording the submission of the learned Government

¶16

¶17

Advocate (Crl. Side) that the second respondent is complying with the condition regularly, relaxed the condition that the petitioners shall appear before the respondent police once is a week i.e on every Sunday at 10.00 am until orders. Now, the petitioner has received information from Right to Information Act and submitted that the petitioner has not complied with the condition from 14.12.2015 to 21.12.2015 and prayed for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner.

¶18

The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that the second respondent has complied with the condition imposed by this Court from 14.12.2015 to 21.12.2015 and subsequently, filed relaxation petition and this Court by order dated 21.12.2015 relaxed the condition that the second respondent shall appear before the respondent police once in a week i.e on every Sunday at 10.00 am until orders.

¶19

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) produced a note book to show that the second respondent appeared before the first respondent from 14.12.2015 to 21.12.2015 and signed at 10.00 am in all the dates.

¶20

Considering the contention of the learned counsel for the second respondent and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) that the second respondent did not violate the condition imposed by this Court, this Court is not inclined to allow the petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

¶21

sd/-

¶22

18/08/2016

¶23

/ TRUE COPY /

¶24

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

¶25

Madurai - 625 023.

¶26

¶27

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KEERANUR 2 THE CHEIF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT 3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

¶28

KEERANUR POLICE STATION, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT,

¶29

4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶30

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶31

+1. C.C. to M/S G.MATHAVAN Advocate SR.No.45806 +1 CC to M/s.B.JAMEEL ARASU, Advocate, SR No.45566

¶32

ORDER IN

¶33

CRL MP(MD) No.6291 of 2016 IN

¶34

CRL OP(MD) No.21467 of 2015

¶35

Date :18/08/2016

¶36

trp

¶37

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ SH/SS-3/SAR-III:01.09.2016:2P/7C

Salomon, v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salomon, v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.Kumar, Vs the Inspector of Police

N.Ranjith Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Thamaraiselvan Vs the Inspector of Police

Veeramurugan Vs the Inspector of Police

P. Rajkumar Vs the Inspector of Police

Murugan Vs the Inspector of Police