Remanded

S.N.Binusha, F/26 v. the State Rep by

Madras HC28 Jun 2017CRL OP/26167/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a special leave petition seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the second respondent. While refusing to cancel the bail due to the respondent's age and health issues, the court imposed a fine of Rs. 5,000 for deliberate suppression of material facts.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed but no anticipatory bail cancelled; respondent directed to pay Rs. 5,000 to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.

S.N.Binusha, F/26 Vs the State Rep by — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 28.06.2017

¶3

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.BASKARAN

¶4

Crl.O.P.No.26167 of 2016

¶5

S.N.Binusha

¶6

...Petitioner/Defacto/Complainant

¶7

Vs. ... Respondents

¶8

The State rep. By The Sub-Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Kancheepuram. 2. S.Latha

¶9

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 439 (ii) of Cr.P.C., to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the second respondent herein in Crl.M.P.No.1768 of 2016 on 23.11.2016 on the file of District and Sessions Court-II, Kancheepuram.

¶10

For Petitioner : M/s.K.Nagarajan For R1 : Mr.R.Sekar, Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) O R D E R

¶11

This criminal original petition has been filed to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the second respondent herein in Crl.M.P.No.1768 of 2016 on 23.11.2016 on the file of District and Sessions Court-II, Kancheepuram.

¶12

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the first respondent.

¶13

The petitioner herein, among other averments seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail, stated that the pendency of D.V.case has not been disclosed by the 2^nd respondent/mother-inlaw in her Anticipatory bail application in Crl.M.P.No.1768 of 2016 and also suppressed the pendency of earlier bail

¶14

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

¶15

applications. It is contended that the 2^nd respondent had deliberately suppressed the said facts and had obtained anticipatory bail before District Sessions Court-II, Kanchipuram, by order dated 23.11.2016. Now the petitioner seeks cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the 2^nd respondent herein.

¶16

Considering the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/defacto complainant that the 2^nd respondent has obtained anticipatory bail order before Sessions Judge-II, District Sessions Court-II, Kanchipuram, by suppressing the facts regarding pendency of earlier anticipatory bail applications and the pendency of D.V.Case on the one hand but on the other hand considering the 2^nd respondent's age and the other attendant circumstances specified by her before the court below and the observations of the said court that the 2^nd respondent is having lot of ailments etc, this court is not inclined to cancel the anticipatory bail already granted. However, taking note of the conduct of the 2^nd respondent herein inasmuch as the deliberate suppression of fact, she is directed to pay a cost of Rs.5,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority attached to High Court, Madras, within 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶17

This petition is disposed of on the above terms.

¶18

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS V )
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar

¶19

kmi/nvsri

¶20

¶21

The District and Sessions Court-II, Kancheepuram.

¶22

The Sub-Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Kancheepuram.

¶23

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶24

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

¶25

Copy to:

¶26

The Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, High Court, Madras-104.

¶27

+1cc to Mr.K.Nagarajan, Advocate in sr.no.51061(20/07/2017) Crl.O.P.No.26167 of 2016

¶28

SAI(CO) NR 18/07/2017

¶29

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

S.N.Binusha, F/26 v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.N.Binusha, F/26 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Raju, Aged 52 Years, Vs the State Rep. by

Vinothini, F/Age 20 Years Vs State Rep.by

M.Venkatesh, Aged 23 Years, Vs State Rep. by

R.Reuban Jefferson Jani, Vs Dr.M.C.Selvakumar

Yasodha Vs Andalammal

Dhanasingh Vs R.Gnanasekar