Petitioner sought cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondents. No material was found to substantiate allegations of violation of court conditions.
Petition for cancellation of anticipatory bail dismissed; bail remains in force.
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.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )
Tuesday, the Fourteenth day of November Two Thousand Seventeen
PRESENT
The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI
CRL MP(MD) No.10278 of 2017 IN
CRL OP(MD) No.5369 of 2017
S.M. GEETHA
... INTERVENE PETITIONER / DEFACTO COMPLAINANT
Vs
1 SHIYAM PRAKASH
2 DURAI RAO
3 SUSEELA
4 JANSI RANI ..PETITIONERS/ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN
5 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION(SOUTH)
MADURAI CITY, MADURAI (CR.NO.NOT KNOWN / 2017) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
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 which was granted to the Petitioners/Accused No. 1 to 4 in Crl.O.P.NO. 5369/2017 dated 20.06.2017 and 06.10.2017 by this Honourable Court and pass any further order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.T.LAJAPATHI ROY, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr.K.ANBARASAN, Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the 5th Respondent and Mr.SULTHAN BASHA for M/s.AJMAL ASSOCIATES, for R1 to R4 and the court made the following order:-
The petitioner has filed this cancellation of anticipatory bail petition to cancel the anticipatory bail granted by this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5369 of 2013 on 20.10.2017 and 06.10.2017.
2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner who is the wife of the first respondent, approached this Court for cancellation of anticipatory bail on the ground that the first respondent has threatened the petitioner and thereby, the first respondent tried to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ kidnap the child.
2
3.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the first respondent is working in Thane and the respondents did not violation any condition as directed by this Court and they have also been regularly complied with the conditions imposed by this Court.
4.In view of the above, the allegation levelled by the petitioner is without any substance and there is no material to prove as if the respondents have violated the condition imposed by this Court. Therefore, I am not inclined to cancel the anticipatory bail granted by this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5369 of 2013 on 20.10.2017 and 06.10.2017. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
TO
ORDER
IN
Date :14/11/2017
MRN
SH/PM-PN/SAR-4:23.11.2017:2P/5C
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail granted to respondents should be cancelled on the allegation of threat and attempt to kidnap child by the petitioner.
S.M. GEETHA
SHIYAM PRAKASH
DURAI RAO
SUSEELA
JANSI RANI
THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION(SOUTH), MADURAI CITY, MADURAI
M. DHANDAPANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
