Dismissed

V. Paulpandi, v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC6 Jun 2018CRL OP(MD)/4882/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail petition under Section 438 CrPC, the petitioner failed to appear. The intervenor reported that the petitioner had not complied with the interim order condition requiring a security deposit. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petition for anticipatory bail dismissed due to non-compliance with interim conditions regarding court fees.

V. Paulpandi, Vs the Inspector of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

Wednesday, the Sixth day of June Two Thousand Eighteen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

CRL OP(MD) No.4882 of 2018

¶7

V.PAULPANDI ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED

RANK NOT KNOWN

STATE REP.BY,

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THILAGARTHIDAL POLICE STATION, MADURAI.

¶12

CRIME NO.NOT KNOWN OF 2018 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶13

For Petitioner : NO APPEARANCE

¶14

For Respondent : MR.A.ROBINSON, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : MR.R.RAMASAMY, Advocate

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶17

The petitioner apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC in Crime No.329 of 2018, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶18

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

¶19

3.On 19.04.2018, this Court granted an interim order on condition that the petitioner should deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-

¶20

in two instalments. Today, when the matter was taken up for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner is not present. The learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that the condition

¶21

¶22

imposed by this Court with regard to the deposit has not been complied with.

¶23

4.In view of the conduct of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶24

sd/06/06/2018 / TRUE COPY /

¶25

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶26

¶27

1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THILAGARTHIDAL POLICE STATION, MADURAI.

¶28

2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶29

ORDER

¶30

¶31

CRL OP(MD) No.4882 of 2018 Date :06/06/2018 (1/2) PK/RR-CSL/ASVM/14.06.2018 : 2P/3C

¶32

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

V. Paulpandi, v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V. Paulpandi, 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

Packiyam Vs the Inspector of Police

Rani Vs the Inspector of Police

Padmavathi Vs the Inspector of Police

P.Sekar Vs the Inspector of Police

Kalimuthu Vs the Inspector of Police

G.P.Dharanikumar Vs the Inspector of Police