Partly allowed

Mohamed Feroza, v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC23 Apr 2018CRL OP(MD)/2905/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail plea for the first petitioner (husband) but granted it to the second and third petitioners (aged parents-in-law), releasing them on bail with a bond and conditions until appearance before the Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to petitioners 2 and 3 on bond with sureties, subject to appearing before the Magistrate within 15 days and complying with interrogation requirements; petition for petitioner

Mohamed Feroza, Vs the Inspector of Police — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

Monday, the Twenty Third day of April Two Thousand Eighteen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

CRL OP(MD) No.2905 of 2018 and CRL MP(MD)No.2936 and 2937 of 2018

¶7

1 MOHAMED FEROZA, 2 MOHAMED MAIDEEN, 3 JESSIMA, ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOT KNOWN

¶8

THE STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, C 3, PERUMALPURAM POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. (CRIME NO.54 OF 2018) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶9

For Petitioner : M/S.A.J.MOHAMED KASSIAM Advocate

¶10

For Respondent : MR.A.ROBINSON, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶11

For Intervenor : MR.N.JAGADEESH PANDIAN, Advocate

¶12

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

¶13

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶14

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC., in Crime No.54 of 2018, seek anticipatory bail.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent Police.

¶16

The learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant submitted that the original certificates as well as the passport of the defacto complainant is still being retained by her husband/first petitioner.

¶17

Taking note of this serious allegation, this Court dismissed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ this Criminal Original Petition as far as the first petitioner is concerned. Since the petitioners 2 and 3 are the aged parents-in-law

¶18

¶19

of the defacto complainant, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners 2 and 3 with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioners 2 and 3 are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli, and on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioners 2 and 3 shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation. The petitioners 2 and 3 shall comply with the conditions stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously.

¶20

The petitioners 2 and 3 shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶21

sd/-

¶22

23/04/2018 / TRUE COPY /

¶23

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)

¶24

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

¶25

Madurai - 625 023.

¶26

¶27

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, THIRUNELVELI

¶28

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT

¶29

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

¶30

C 3, PERUMALPURAM POLICE STATION,

¶31

TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.

¶32

4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI

¶33

+1. CC to M/S.A.J.MOHAMED KASSIAM Advocate SR.No.6838

¶34

+1 cc to MR.M.JEGADEESHA PANDIAN, Advocate SR.No.6921

¶35

ORDER

¶36

¶37

CRL OP(MD) No.2905 of 2018 and CRL MP(MD)No.2936 and 2937 of 2018

¶38

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Date :23/04/2018 SMA/CSL/ASVM/27.04.2018:2P/7C

Mohamed Feroza, v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohamed Feroza, 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

G.S.Rajasekaran Vs R.Ramakrishnan

1. Usman Ali @ Ibrahim Vs State, Inspector of Police

M/S.Golecha Global Vs ARUNSHAH,4/6,MAMTHA Complex

Pothiraj, Vs the Inspector of Police

D. Devadasan Vs the Inspector of Police

Ramasamy Vs Imam Oli