Dismissed

Bhagyalakshmi v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC20 Apr 2017CRL OP(MD)/4465/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This short order dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C./File. The court recorded the submission of the Government Advocate that the previous petition had been closed after enquiry and no FIR was registered, noting that the legal representative would address grievances regarding returned jewels.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition is closed.

Bhagyalakshmi Vs the Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶2

Thursday, the Twentieth day of April Two Thousand Seventeen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mrs.Justice J.NISHA BANU

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.4465 of 2017

¶6

1 BHAGYALAKSHMI 2 A.GOMATHI ... PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS 3 & 2/ ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN Vs

¶7

STATE REP BY

¶8

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, PALAYAMKOTTAI, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT CRIME NO. NOT KNOWN OF 2017 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶9

For Petitioners : M/S.C.ARUL VADIVEL ALIAS SEKAR Advocate

¶10

For Respondent : MRS.S.PRABHA, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶11

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

¶12

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶13

This is an application filed by the petitioners for anticipatory bail at petition enquiry stage.

¶14

Heard both sides.

¶15

3.Earlier, the petitioners have filed Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3380 of 2017 for anticipatory bail. This Court by order dated 23.03.2017, on the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side), to the effect that after conducting enquiry, the petition has been closed and no F.I.R is registered against the petitioners, dismissed the said Criminal Original Petition.

¶16

4.Thereafter, the respondent police issued summons to the inlaws of the defacto complainant, who are residing at Hosur and therefore, they have come forward with the present petition for anticipatory bail, once again.

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5.Today, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that as the petitioners did not return the jewels, summon was

¶18

to them. She undertakes that she would instruct the respondent police to resort such grievance.

¶19

6.Recording the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (crl. Side), this Criminal original Petition is closed.

¶20

sd/20/04/2017 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, PALAYAMKOTTAI, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT 2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S.C.ARUL VADIVEL ALIAS SEKAR Advocate SR.No.20621 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.4465 of 2017 Date :20/04/2017 SMA/BS/SAR-2/24.04.2017:2P/4C

¶21

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

Bhagyalakshmi v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagyalakshmi v. the Inspector of Police

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

Vijayakumar, Vs the Inspector of Police

Venmani, Vs the Inspector of Police

Mohammed Rafeeq, Vs State Rep. by

P.Sathish Kumar, Vs the Inspector of Police

Kumaran Vs the Inspector of Police

Ramesh Vs the Sub Inspector of Police