Allowed

Mahalingam v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC12 Jun 2018CRL OP(MD)/9463/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to accused Mahalingam and Manikandan facing charges under IPC and Mines and Minerals Act for a crime registered in 2015, subject to sureties and police interrogation mandates.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail via anticipatory bail order with conditions to execute bond, furnish sureties, appear before Magistrate and police, and comply with Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Mahalingam Vs the Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

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

¶2

Tuesday, the Twelfth day of June Two Thousand Eighteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

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

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.9463 of 2018

¶6

1 MAHALINGAM 2 MANIKANDAN ... PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2

¶7

STATE REP.BY

¶8

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MELATTUR POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR DISTRICT. IN CRIME NO.61/2015

¶9

... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT

¶10

For Petitioners: Mr.PR BOOMEE RAJAN Advocate

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶14

The petitioners apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 506(ii) and 307 IPC., r/w 21 (1) of Mines and Minerals Act, 1957, in Crime No.61 of 2015, seek anticipatory bail.

¶15

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent.

¶16

3.Taking into account the fact that the case was registered back in the year 2015, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.III, Thanjavur, and on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two common sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioners shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation. The petitioners shall comply with the conditions stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously.

¶17

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

¶18

4.The petitioners shall appears before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed.

¶19

/ TRUE COPY /

¶20

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

¶21

THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.III, THANJAVUR.

¶22

DO-THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THANJAVUR DISTRICT AT KUMBAKONAM.

¶23

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MELATTUR POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR DISTRICT.

¶24

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

¶25

+1. CC to Mr.PR BOOMEE RAJAN Advocate SR.No.10329

¶26

MS/CM-VR/VK/14.06.2018/2P.6C

¶27

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

Mahalingam v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahalingam 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

Suresh, Vs the Inspector of Police

Balamurugan Vs the Inspector of Police

Hussain Mohammed, Vs the Inspector of Police

C.Surya Vs the Dy. Supdt. of Police

Mohamed Meeran Vs the Sub - Inspector of Police

Jeyakumar Vs the Deputy Superintendent of