Dismissed

Packiyam v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC5 Jun 2018CRL OP(MD)/5629/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by accused No.1-3. The court refused relief due to the petitioners' failure to obtain compliance with a prior undertaking recorded in a previous order to nullify the offending transaction involved in the offences under Sections 406, 467, 468, 471, 420 r/w 109 IPC.

What the court decided

AI extract

Packiyam Vs the Inspector of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

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

¶2

Tuesday, the Fifth day of June Two Thousand Eighteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

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

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.5629 of 2018

¶6

1 PACKIYAM

¶7

2 MUTHAMMAL 3 RAJENDRAN ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3

¶8

¶9

THE STATE REP.BY

¶10

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, THANJAVUR. IN CR.NO.21/2015 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT

¶11

For Petitioners : M/S.S.MUNIYANDI Advocate

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶15

The petitioners, who are arrayed as accused No.1 to 3, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 467, 468, 471, 420 r/w 109 IPC in Crime No.21 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶16

2.When the matter was taken up for hearing on 19.04.2018, the learned counsel for the petitioners made a submission that the offending transaction shall be nullified. Recording the said undertaking, the respondent police are directed not to arrest the petitioners and the matter is listed today for reporting compliance.

¶17

3.When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the undertaking given https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ earlier is yet to be complied with.

¶18

4.In view of the noncompliance of the undertaking given before this Court, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners at this stage. Hence, this present Criminal Original Petition dismissed.

¶19

sd/-

¶20

05/06/2018

¶21

/ TRUE COPY /

¶22

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)

¶23

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

¶24

Madurai - 625 023.

¶25

¶26

1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, THANJAVUR.

¶27

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

¶28

GJM/RRR/CSL/VK/12.6.18-2P-3C

¶29

ORDER

¶30

¶31

CRL OP(MD) No.5629 of 2018

¶32

Date :05/06/2018

¶33

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

Packiyam v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Packiyam v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The General Manager, Vs Sobana

S. Babu Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police

P.Karuppasamy Vs the Director General of Police

K.Ramakrishnan Vs the Inspector of Police

Kaliyaperumal, Vs the Inspector of Police

Ramalingam Vs Anbalagan