The petitioner filed an anticipatory bail petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. During hearing, the court was initially inclined not to grant bail, but counsel sought withdrawal. The court dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
Petition dismissed as withdrawn by the petitioner's counsel.
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 )
Tuesday, the Sixteenth day of August Two Thousand Sixteen
PRESENT
The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI
CRL OP(MD) No.14739 of 2016
M. PUNITHA ROSY@ PUNITHA ROSITA MALAR ... PETITIONER / SOLE ACCUSED
STATE REP BY ITS THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, TIRUCHIRAPALLI DISTRICT. (CRIME NO. 7 OF 2016) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT
For Petitioner : M/S.M.KARUNANITHI Advocate
For Respondent : MR.P.KANNITHEVAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)
PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-
After hearing the argument in length, when this Court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition and he has also made an endorsement to that effect.
/ TRUE COPY /
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
TO
ORDER
IN
CRL OP(MD) No.14739 of 2016
Date :16/08/2016 SMA/SK-SKN/SAR-I/22/08/2016 :2P/3C
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M. Punitha Rosy @ Punitha Rosita Malar
Rep by its The Inspector of Police District Crime Branch, Tiruchirapalli District
V.M Velumani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
