Disposed

Neelamegam v. State Rep. by

Madras HC22 Jun 2016CRL OP/12957/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Directs the District and Sessions Judge, Perambalur to consider the petitioner's bail application on the same day in Crime No.1 of 2015. Notes that Section 18 of the SC & ST Act bars anticipatory bail applications.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the learned District and Sessions Judge, Perambalur to consider the petitioner's bail application on the same day and dispose of it on merits.

Neelamegam Vs State Rep. by — Caste Atrocities | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 22.06.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

CRL.OP.No.12957 of 2016

Neelamegam

.. Petitioner

Vs.

State rep. By The Inspector of Police, CBCID, Perambalur District.

¶10

(Crime No.1/2015) .. Respondent

¶11

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the learned District and Sessions Judge, Perambalur to consider the petitioner's bail application on the same day in Crime No.1 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Senthilkumar

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.C.Emalias, APP

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for a direction to the learned District and Sessions Judge, Perambalur to consider the bail application of the petitioner on the same day on his surrender in Crime No.1 of 2015 pending on the file of the respondent.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner has been implicated in this case for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 348, 294[b], 323, 325, 355, 354, 114, 166, 167, 218, 506[i], 306, 201 of IPC r/w 3[1][x], 3[1][xi], 3[2][v], 3[2][vii] of SC & ST [Prevention of Atrocities] Act r/w 109 IPC and that in view of the specific bar under Section 18 of the said Act, the petitioner cannot move any anticipatory bail application and therefore, the petitioner has come forward with the said prayer.

¶16

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor takes notice for the respondent.

¶17

It is seen that co-accused/A3 to A5 has been granted same relief in Crl.OP.No.11189 of 2016 by this Court on 26.05.2016.

¶18

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

¶19

Considering the submissions of both sides and also considering the nature of the prayer in this case in view of the specific bar under Section 18 of the SC & ST [Prevention of Atrocities] Act that the petitioner cannot move any anticipatory bail, the learned District and Sessions Judge, Perambalur is directed to consider the bail application, in the event of the petitioner filing such petition in Crime No.1 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police, and dispose of the same on merits, in accordance with law on the same day.

¶20

With this observation, this petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶21

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar gya To 1.The District and Sessions Judge, Perambalur. 2.The Inspector of Police, CBCID, Perambalur District. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. + 1 cc to M/s. S. Senthilkumar, Advocate Sr.34412 CRL.OP.No.12957 of 2016 SNS(CO) Eu 23.6.16

¶22

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

Neelamegam v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neelamegam v. State Rep. by

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

Muruganandam Vs State Rep by

Raja Vs the Inspector of Police

F.Babu Vs the Inspector of Police

Neethi Nepolean Vs the Chief Secretary

A.Iniyavan @ Ramachandran Vs the State Rep. by

Sagar, S/O. K.P. Sivaprakash, Vs State Inspector of Police