Disposed

M.K.Udaikumar, v. the State

Madras HC8 Nov 2018CRL OP/18438/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court directed the respondent police to secure the custody of the accused T. Suresh and complete the investigation in Crime No. 22 of 2017 within four months, following the dismissal of his anticipatory bail petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent police to secure the custody of T. Suresh and complete the investigation and file a final report within four months.

M.K.Udaikumar, Vs the State — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 08.11.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

CRL.O.P.No.18438 of 2018

¶6

M.K.Udaikumar ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs The State Represented by the Inspector of Police, Land Grabbing Prevention Special Wing, Thiruvallur. ... Respondent Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondent to secure custody of T.Suresh, 7^th Accused in Crime No.22 of 2017 on the file of the respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.Nandakumar For Respondents : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R

¶8

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking a direction to direct the respondent Police to secure custody of one T.Suresh, who has been arrayed as A7 in Crime No.22 of 2017.

¶9

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this Court has already dismissed the anticipatory bail petition filed by A7 in Crl.O.P.No.13857 of 2017, by order dated 08.08.2017. He would further submit that in spite of dismissal of the anticipatory bail petition, the respondent Police have not come forward for arresting the A7.

¶10

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there are totally 7 accused persons in this case and First Information Report has been registered in Crime No.22 of 2017, for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the case is still in the stage of investigation. He would also

¶11

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

¶12

submit that the respondent Police are taking effective steps to nab all the culprits and the respondent Police have also taken note of the fact that the anticipatory bail petition filed by A7 has already been dismissed by this Court by order dated 08.08.2017.

¶13

4.It is seen from the records that the case was registered in the year 2017. The entire case is borne out by records. Now that the anticipatory bail petition filed by A7 has already been dismissed, it is left open to the respondent Police to secure A7, if it is felt that custodial interrogation will be necessary in the course of investigation. The respondent Police is directed to complete the investigation in this case and file a final report within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶14

5.With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶15

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CCC)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
kal
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Land Grabbing Prevention Special Wing,
Thiruvallur.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.

¶16

+1 cc to Mr.B.Thilak Narayanan, Advocate Sr.No.76295

¶17

CRL.O.P.No.18438 of 2018

¶18

SPD(CO) CSL/19.11.2018

¶19

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

M.K.Udaikumar, v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.K.Udaikumar, v. the State

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

P.Thandapani Vs the Superintendent of Police

Subbaiah Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

K.Malayandi, S/O Kalaiservai, Vs the Superintendent of Police

P.Chellamuthu Vs the State Rep by

Mr. C. Sasidharan, Vs Mr. P. Karuppusamy

A.N.Radhakrishnan Vs the Sub Inspector of Police