Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Jemila, Vs the Inspector of Police — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2019)

Home
Madras HC
2019
Jemila, Vs the Inspector of PoliceJemila, v. the Inspector of Police

Dismissed

Jemila, v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC17 Jun 2019CRL MP(MD)/1647/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

null

What the court decided

AI extract

A

1

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

Monday, the Seventeenth day of June Two Thousand Nineteen

PRESENT

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice P.RAJAMANICKAM

CRL MP(MD) No.1647 of 2019 IN CRL OP(MD) No.22526 of 2018

JEMILA ... PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

Vs

1 STATE REP. BY

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, NAGERCOIL, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT. (CRIME NO.50/2018) ... RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/

COMPLAINANT

2 A.THOMAS RAJA NADAR ... RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER/

ACCUSED NO.1

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
JEMILA
respondent
STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, NAGERCOIL
respondent
A.THOMAS RAJA NADAR

Coram

AI extract

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 17 Jun 2019 · June
Registered: 25 Feb 2019
Case no.: CRL MP(MD)/1647/2019

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from P. Rajamanickam

Selvamani, Vs the Inspector of Police
14 Jun 2019
P.Muthurasu, Vs the Inspector of Police
14 Jun 2019
Abdul Majith Vs the Inspector of Police
14 Jun 2019
S.Raja @ Alagarsamy, Vs the Inspector of Police
17 Jun 2019

Cite this judgement

Jemila, v. the Inspector of Police, CRL MP(MD)/1647/2019 (MAD), decided on 17 June 2019.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Bench / Coram

P. RAJAMANICKAM

Parties & counsel

Outcome

Dismissed

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

null

A compact analysis

This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the petition filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to cancel the Anticipatory bail granted to the 2nd respondent in Crl.OP (MD)No.22526 of 2018 dated 20.12.2018 on the file of this Honourable Court.

Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of MR.P.M.VISHNUVARTHANAN, Advocate for the petitioner and of MR.V.NEELAKANDAN, Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 and MR.R.J..KARTHICK, Advocate for R2, the court made the following order:-

This Petition has been filed by the defacto complainant to cancel the anticipatory bail, which was granted to the second respondent in Crl.O.P(MD)No.22526 of 2018, dated 20.12.2018.

2.The learned counsel for the defacto complainant has submitted that this Court while granting anticipatory bail in Crl.O.P(MD) No.22526 of 2018, has recorded the undertaking given by the learned counsel for the second respondent that the second respondent will https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ return all the Sridhana articles to the defacto complainant. But, actually the second respondent has not returned the said articles as

2

per undertaking given by him. Hence, the present petition has been filed. He has further submitted that after filing of this petition, the second respondent has complied with the said condition and hence, this petition has become infructuous.

3.The learned counsel for the second respondent has also submitted that he has complied with the condition on 27.12.2018 itself, and returned all the sridhana articles and therefore, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the second respondent has complied with the said condition.

5.Recording the aforesaid submission, this petition is dismissed.

sd/-

17/06/2019

/ TRUE COPY /

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

TO

1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTATE, BOOTHAPANDY, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.

2.THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT AT NAGERCOIL

3.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, NAGERCOIL, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.

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

+1. CC to MR.P.M.VISHNUVARTHANAN, Advocate SR.No.69828

ORDER

IN

CRL MP(MD) No.1647 of 2019 IN CRL OP(MD) No.22526 of 2018 Date :17/06/2019

JM/VR/SAR 2/25.06.2019/2P/6C

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

P. RAJAMANICKAM

CNR

HCMD010029122019

Topic

Bail and Remand

Bench

P. Rajamanickam

Disposal

DISMISSED

Sundararajan Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

17 Jun 2019

Jayaston, S/O.Amirtharaj Vs the Inspector of Police

17 Jun 2019