Dismissed

Vetrivel (M/25 Yrs) v. State Rep.by

Madras HC13 Nov 2017CRL OP/24240/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismissed the third petition for anticipatory bail filed by Vetrivel. The court noted no material change in facts despite a four-month lapse, highlighted the petitioner's 10 prior cases and alleged brutality against the complainant, and held the petition devoid of merits.

What did the court decide?

The petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

Vetrivel (M/25 Yrs) Vs State Rep.by — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Monday, the Thirteenth day of November Two Thousand Seventeen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice P. N. PRAKASH

¶6

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.24240 of 2017

¶7

VETRIVEL [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]

¶8

¶9

STATE REP.BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SAMALPATTY P.S, KRISHNAGIRI DT. CR.NO.115 OF 2017.

¶10

For Petitioner : M/S.D.MARIOJOHNSON Advocate

¶11

For Respondent : MR. K.MATHAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶12

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.

¶13

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶14

This is the third anticipatory bail petition and earlier the first anticipatory bail application in Crl.O.P.No.11326 of 2017 has been dismissed by this Court on 28.06.2017 and the second anticipatory bail petition in Crl.O.P.No.15103 of 2017 has been dismissed on 31.07.2017.

¶15

Except the fact that there has been a lapse of four months, from the time the last anticipatory bail petition was dismissed, this Court does not find any change in fact situation warranting grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a student and therefore, some indulgence could be shown to him.

¶17

The petitioner has 10 previous cases against him and the Courts have shown much indulgence to him which has perhaps emboldened him to attack the de facto complainant in this case brutally with weapons.

¶18

Taking into consideration the serious nature of allegations in the FIR, this Court is of the view that this is a not fit a case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶19

In view of the above, this petition is dismissed as being devoid of merits.

¶20

-sd/-

¶21

13/11/2017

¶22

This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned

¶23

TRUE COPY

¶24

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

¶25

¶26

1 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶27

2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SAMALPATTY P.S, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT.

¶28

+1CC to M/S.D.MARIOJOHNSON Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR NO.20892

¶29

CRL OP.24240/2017

¶30

Date :13/11/2017

¶31

MK:16/11/2017

Vetrivel (M/25 Yrs) v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vetrivel (M/25 Yrs) 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jayapal, Age 55 Years Vs State Represented by

Arul Prakash, 40 Years, Vs State, Represented by

K.Nagendran, M/A.49 Vs State Rep. by

R.Palanisamy, 39 Years Vs Radhakrishnan

E.Murugesan Vs M.Chakaravarthi

D.Sampath, Aged 53 Years Vs State Represented by