Dismissed

Kumaresan, M-59 Yrs, v. the State Rep. by

Madras HC16 Nov 2017CRL OP/24364/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a second anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for the petitioner, who was initially rejected after his first application. The bench rejected the argument that a counter FIR provided justification, characterizing the petitioner's actions as abominable and noting his previous criminal history.

What did the court decide?

petition dismissed; petitioner denied anticipatory bail reservation.

Kumaresan, M-59 Yrs, Vs the State Rep. by — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Thursday, the Sixteenth day of November Two Thousand Seventeen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice P. N. PRAKASH

¶6

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.24364 of 2017

¶7

KUMARESAN [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]

¶8

¶9

THE STATE REP. BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRUVALANGADU POLICE STATION, TIRUVALANGADU, TIRUVALLUR DISTRICT, CR.NO.352 OF 2017.

¶10

For Petitioner : M/S.R.JOHN SATHYAN 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 second bail application. The first bail application filed in Crl.O.P.No.16752 of 2017 was dismissed by this Court on 18.08.2017 as against the petitioner herein, on the ground that the petitioner was involved in three previous cases, and the coaccused Rajkumar and Saravanan, were granted anticipatory bail on 18.08.2017.

¶15

2.Mr.R.John Sathyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that on the complaint given by the petitioner's wife, a counter FIR has been registered in Crime No.353 of 2017 against the defacto complainant. The complaint of the defacto complainant against the wife of the petitioner, has already been registered as Crime No.352 of 2017 and thus, this is a case in counter. However, on reading of the complaint in FIR 352 of 2017, it is seen that this petitioner had removed his clothes and stood naked before the defacto complainant unashamedly on account of which, the family members of the defacto complainant were irritated and they appear to have thrashed the petitioner. Petitioner appears to be a pervert and deserves no leniency.

¶16

Just because the petitioner is suffering from certain heart ailment and admitted in the hospital, his act cannot be condoned. Considering the abominable conduct of the petitioner, this petition is dismissed.

¶17

-sd/-

¶18

16/11/2017

¶19

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

¶20

TRUE COPY

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

1 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶24

2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRUVALANGADU POLICE STATION, TIRUVALANGADU, TIRUVALLUR DISTRICT,

¶25

+1CC to M/S.R.JOHN SATHYAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR NO.21008

¶26

CRL OP.24364/2017

¶27

Date :16/11/2017 MK:22/11/2017

Kumaresan, M-59 Yrs, v. the State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumaresan, M-59 Yrs, v. the 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

P.Damodaran Vs v.Udaya Kumar

M/S.Sree Gokulam Chits & Vs Mr.Ganesamurthy

K.Raju @ Raji Vs G.Gunasekaran

Chandrabose Vs Subhashini

V.Mangaiyarkarasi Vs Suresh Chandra Chogmalji Bafna

Murthy Vs Sub Inspector Ofp Olice